N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL GADDY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. N. ADAM , De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-16107 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-01642-HSG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Haywood S. Gillia

m , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SM ITH, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. C a lifornia

sta te prisone r M ic ha e l Ga d dy (Ga ddy ) a

ppe a ls a n orde r granting
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Dr. N. Ada

m (Adam ) in Ga ddy ’ s c ivil rights ac tion
a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his m e dic a l ne e ds. 

# FIL ED JAN 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of R

hode Isla nd, sitting by de signa

tion.1. W e re vie wthe grant of sum m ary judgm e nt d

e nov o , se e Asarc o LLC

v . Atl. Ric hfie ld C

o. , 866 F.3d 1108, 1118 (9th C ir. 2017), a nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

use the re c ord doe s not ra ise a m ate ria l issue of fa c t re ga rding de libe rat e indiffe re nc e . Se e C olw e l l v . Banniste r , 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th C ir. 2014) (sta ting tha t a n offic ia l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e “ only

if the offic ia l knows of a nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to [a prisone r’ s] he a l th a

nd sa fe ty ” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). At
m ost, Dr. Ada

m displa y e d ne glige nc e or gross ne glige n c e whe n she disc ontinue d Ga ddy ’ s wa ist-c ha in c hrono. Se e Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th C ir. 2004) (noting tha

t gross ne glige nc e doe s not c onstitute de libe rate indiffe re nc e ). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing them otion for
a dditional disc ove ry b e c a use Ga ddy

fa ile d to spe c ify

any fa c ts to bedisc ove re d that would ha ve e s ta blishe d de l ibe rate indiffe re nc e on the pa rt of Dr. Ada

m . Se e Tatum v . C

ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th C ir. 2006). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Ga ddy ’ s m otions to c o m pe l re s ponse s to theinte rrogatorie s a nd to c om pe l the produc tion of m e dic a l
re c o rds be c a

use it re m a ine d unc le ar whic h re sponse s Ga ddy c onte nde d we re ina d e quate , a

nd Ga d dy is thus una

ble to e sta

b lish tha t the de nia l re s ulte d in pre j udic e . Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C i r. 2002), as ame nde d
2(re quiring “ the c le are st showing tha t the de nia l of disc ove ry

re s ult[e d] in a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre j udic e to the c om

pla ining litiga

nt” ) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). AFFIRM E D.

3