
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Habibollah ELAHINEJAD, Claimant-Appellant, and Various Restaurant Furniture and Goods of Iranian Origin, Defendant.
    No. 16-55559
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Steven Reuben Welk, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Habibollah Elahinejad, Pro Se
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Habibollah Elahinejad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. §§ 1595a(c)(l)(A) and 1595a(c)(2)(B) for goods seized from a shipment from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. $133, 420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Elahinejad failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a colorable interest in the property. See id. at 638 (“[I]n a civil forfeiture action, a claimant’s bare assertion of an ownership or possessory interest, in the absence of some other evidence, is not enough to survive a motion for summary judgment.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Elahinejad’s contention that the district court did not consider his evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment.

Because we affirm summary judgment, we do not réach Elahinejad’s other contentions on appeal. See United States v. $15,500 in U.S. Currency, 558 F.2d 1359, 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (when a claimant fails to establish the threshold requirement of standing, the claimant’s challenges to the merits of the forfeiture action cannot be reached).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     