MEMORANDUM **

Dennis Perryman, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary *775 proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perryman’s due process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Perryman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

AFFIRMED.