MEMORANDUM
Terry Darrell Smith, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising from Smith’s request for documents relating to his extradition from Cambodia. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a FOIA exception applies, Shannahan v. IRS, 672 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the document and information withheld in response to Smith’s FOIA request are protected by the deliberative process privilege. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) (exempting from disclosure “interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency”); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir.1988) (“[Exemption 5 ‘was intended to protect not simply deliberative material but also the deliberative process of agencies.’ ” (citation omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to the extent that the government redacted the names and contact information of government agents, employees, and third parties as release of this information “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C); see also Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 978-79 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that the “marginal additional usefulness” of the release of the names of government agents and third parties was outweighed by the privacy interests at stake).
Smith’s request for in camera review, set forth in his briefs, is denied. See Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir.2004) (in camera inspection of documents withheld under a FOIA exemption should “not be resorted to lightly” and is disfavored where “the government sustains its burden of proof byway of its testimony or affidavits”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ■ cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.