
    Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick ROBINSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-36157.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 7, 2012.
    Keith L. Nash, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
    Mark Conlin Jobson, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keith L. Nash appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his term of supervised released from the Washington Department of Corrections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nash failed to present any evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of his claims. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 833 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (recognizing “well-established principle that parolees and other conditional releasees are not entitled to the full panoply of rights and protections possessed by the general public”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue defendants’ summary judgment motion until Nash could conduct discovery because Nash failed to identify the specific facts that discovery would have revealed or how those facts would have been essential to resist the summary judgment motion. See California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and setting forth relevant factors).

Nash’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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