Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Plaintiff brought Bivens action alleging that United States Postal Service inspectors violated his constitutional rights during mail fraud investigation. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Florence-Marie Cooper, J., entered summary judgment in favor of inspectors, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that inspectors were entitled to qualified immunity.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Louis Carroll, Jr. appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in his Bivens action, which alleged that United States Postal Service inspectors violated his constitutional rights during a mail fraud investigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a summary judgment, Lite-On Peripherals, Inc. v. Burlington Aire Express, Inc., 255 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court did not err by granting summary judgment. The six USPS inspectors were entitled to qualified immunity
Page 786.
because they acted as reasonable officers under the circumstances of conducting a mail fraud investigation. See LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.