Timothy Patrick v. Greg Martin

MEMORANDUM ** Timothy Ray Patrick, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir.2007) (summary judgment based on qualified immunity); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the deliberate indifference claim because Patrick failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant, a correctional officer, informed other in *285 mates that Patrick was a snitch or sent an inmate to attack Patrick. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing deliberate indifference standard); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir.2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); see also Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue). The district court properly dismissed the sexual harassment claim based on defendant’s comments to Patrick, because verbal harassment is insufficient to state a section 1983 claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987). Patrick’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.