MEMORANDUM ***

Dori Beckwith appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Officer Kimberly Rye, Officer Josh Saunders, and the City of Henderson on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *667 claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beckwith provided no evidence that the conduct of Officer Rye or Officer Saunders amounted to punishment of Beckwith. She presented no evidence that Officer Rye acted “with an ‘expressed intent to punish’ ” her when Officer Rye strip searched her, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)), or that the strip search before placing her in the general jail population was not “reasonably related to [a] legitimate security interest^ ],” Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 328, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012). 1 Similarly, Beckwith presented no evidence that Officer Saunders acted “with an ‘expressed intent to punish’” Beckwith when he erroneously booked another inmate under Beckwith’s name. 2 See Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2473. Because Beck-with did not suffer any deprivation of her constitutional rights, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Henderson. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (per curiam).

The district court did not err in denying Beckwith’s motion to remand to state court certain state claims it had previously dismissed. 3

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding only nominal damages against defendant Robert Pool. The district court gave Beckwith multiple opportunities to prove damages and Beck-with repeatedly submitted little more than conclusory statements that she was entitled to several hundred thousand dollars in damages. The district court was well within its discretion in holding that these con-clusory statements were insufficient to prove damages.

AFFIRMED.