Hodges v. Jermyn

 systems); NDOC AR 740 (setting forth the three-step grievance process).
Next, summary judgment on appellant's remaining counts was
appropriate as appellant either failed to state cognizable causes of action
under the constitutional amendments cited or failed to present evidence
sufficient to support the elements of his claims. Wood, 121 Nev. at 731,
121 P.3d at 1030-31 (in order to overcome a properly supported summary
judgment motion, "the non-moving party may not rest upon general
allegations and conclusions, but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set forth
specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual issue"
(quotation omitted)); Pressler v. City of Reno, 118 Nev. 506, 510, 50 P.3d
1096, 1098 (2002) ("The protections of due process only attach when there
is a deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest"); see Angel v.
Cruse, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 25, 321 P.3d 895, 898 (2014) (setting forth
the elements necessary to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim);
see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (noting requirements
for a deliberate indifference to safety claim); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.,
215, 224-25 (1976) (recognizing that a prisoner has no constitutionally
protected interest in avoiding prison transfers); O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82
F.3d 322, 326 (9th 1996) (noting that a prison need not treat all mail sent
to government agencies and officials as legal mail). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A »c4e)a.,
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Steven Bradley Hodges
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF 3
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 4094