Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith L. NASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-35521.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
    Keith L. Nash, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.
    Mary Catherine McLachlan, Esq., AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia) Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Keith L. Nash appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nash failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Nash’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nash’s motion to enlarge the time in which to oppose summary judgment because he did not demonstrate excusable neglect. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b).

We do not consider the medical indifference and equal protection claims that Nash concedes he raises for the first time on appeal. See Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827 n. 11 (9th Cir.1997).

Nash’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.