
    Robert J. BARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. LOCKHART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 19, 2013.
    Robert J. Bardo, Blythe, CA, Pro Se.
    Jose .Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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 Robert J. Bar-do appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating photographs of and materials referencing the actress that Bardo stalked and killed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo’s retaliation claim because Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any adverse action in retaliation for his legal filings, or whether their actions did not reasonably advance legitimate penological interests. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining the elements of a retaliation claim under § 1983).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo’s claim challenging the California prison regulation justifying the confiscation because Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the regulation is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”).

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