NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY PAYNE, No. 22-35506

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05950-RJB

v. MEMORANDUM* DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, a subdivision of the State of Washington; SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER, an agency of DSHS; HENRY RICHARDS; WILLIAM VAN HOOK; SJAN TALBOT; DAVID FLYNN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Civil detainee Jeffrey Payne appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection

claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v.

Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Payne failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether civil

detainees housed in a total confinement facility, like Payne, were similarly situated

to civil detainees housed in transitional facilities. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of a class-based

discrimination equal protection claim).

Contrary to Payne’s contention, the district court did not err in allowing

defendants to clarify the signatory of the DeVos declaration following Payne’s

objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)

(requiring the district judge to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to” and allowing the district

judge to “receive further evidence”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Payne’s contention that the district

court provided him insufficient time to reply to defendants’ response to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35506