Summary
finding "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in striking motion for summary judgment that [was] filed after the scheduling order deadline" where no good cause for the untimely filing was shown
Summary of this case from Medlock v. Host Int'l, Inc.Opinion
No. 11-17534 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00544-KJM-DAD
09-25-2012
ANTHONY AMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. BAKEWELL; A. NANGALAMA, Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Ammons appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 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 because Ammons failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Bakewell was deliberately indifferent in her treatment of his eye injury. See id. at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Ammons's motion for summary judgment that he filed after the scheduling order deadline because Ammons failed to show "good cause" for the untimely filing. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating standard).
AFFIRMED.