*1 Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Earnest S. Harris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to- courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
*2 The district court properly granted summary judgment because Harris failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of defendant’s conduct. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 353-54 (1996) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).