
    Gregory Lynn NORWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15163.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Gregory Lynn Norwood, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials confiscated his property in retaliation for filing a grievance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Norwood failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the confiscation of his property was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 1269 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir.1995) (deference should be afforded to prison officials in evaluating proffered “legitimate penological” goals); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

Norwood’s contention that the applicable prison regulation requiring confiscation of his property was “illegal” is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     