With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his right of access to the courts by restricting his access to the law library and legal materials and retaliated against him by issuing various reports against him for his protected First Amendment activity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the access to courts claim because the uncontroverted evidence shows that their alleged acts or omissions did not cause dismissal of Adams’s section 1983 action or denial of his habeas petition. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly granted summary

A: recognizing that prisoner alleging inadequate access to courts must show how inadequate access caused actual injury
B: holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts
C: holding that an inmate alleging denial of access to the courts must show an actual injury
D: recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings
A.