MEMORANDUM **

David Matlean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Luchtel v. Hagemann, 623 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment); Cholla Ready Mix., Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment immunity). We affirm.

*798 The district court properly dismissed Matlean’s claims against the State of Nevada under the Eleventh Amendment. See O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suit against a state without its consent).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matlean’s claims against the remaining defendants because Matlean failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his constitutional rights by allegedly failing to obtain certain bonds required by Nevada law. See Villegas v. City of Gilroy, 484 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that he has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 282.163 (“A blanket fidelity bond or blanket position bond may be furnished at county expense for all elected officers except the county treasurer.”).

Matlean’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.