BOLDS v. CAVAZOS (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a procedural due process claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) ). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bolds’s action arising from the alleged deprivation of his television under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3287(a)(4) because Bolds failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not provided with the process he was due under the regulation. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (a prison violates the due process clause “when it prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property [w]ithout underlying [statutory] authority and competent procedural protections” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

We reject as without merit Bolds’s contentions that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to submit findings and recommendations for the district judge’s consideration or that the district judge failed to make a de novo determination of those portions of the findings and recommendations to which Bolds objected.

AFFIRMED.