Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0389-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony AMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. BAKEWELL; A. Nangalama, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17534.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    Anthony Ammons, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Martha M. Stringer, Christina Carroll, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Anthony Am-mons 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 Am-mons 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.