Timothy Ray PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greg MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee, 402 F. App'x 284

MEMORANDUM Timothy Ray Patrick, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir.2007) (summary judgment based on qualified immunity); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)), and we affirm. The district court properly granted

summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the deliberate indifference claim because Patrick failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant, a correctional officer, informed other inmates that Patrick was a snitch or sent an inmate to attack Patrick. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (discussing deliberate indifference standard); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir.2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); see also Nilsson v.

City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (a conclusory affidavit unsupported by facts is insufficient to raise a triable issue). The district court properly dismissed the sexual harassment claim based on defendant’s comments to Patrick, because verbal harassment is insufficient to state a

section 1983 claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987). Patrick’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.