Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martinez AYTCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia SABLICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17387.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 4, 2015.
    Martinez Aytch, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Martinez Atych appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his dental needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We cannot review Atych’s claims of error at trial because Atych failed to provide a trial transcript. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.?d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) (per cu-riam) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide trial transcripts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Atych’s motion to compel discovery, or his motion for an extension of time to complete discovery, because Atych failed to establish that the denials caused substantial prejudice. See Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001) (stating standard of review); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that a district court’s decision to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.