
    Eric Jason FULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE; M. Martel, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16006.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    Eric Jason Fuller, lone, CA, pro se.
    Misha Igra, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Eric Jason Fuller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging denial of the right to a valid Islamic marriage in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler; 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Dismissal of Fuller’s action was proper because the attachments to Fuller’s complaint show that the prison’s prohibition on conjugal visits for inmates serving life sentences without parole did not substantially burden his ability to enter into a valid Islamic marriage. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2); Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2005) (under RLUIPA, prisoner has initial burden to demonstrate that prison policies constitute a substantial burden on the exercise of his religious beliefs); see also Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir.1987) (the court is not limited by the allegations contained in the complaint when a complaint is accompanied by attached documents, but rather may consider those documents in determining whether the plaintiff has stated a claim).

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