Case Name: John Oliver SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, in his official capacity as Warden @ ESP; Robert Bannister; Steven MacArthur; Max Carter, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-20
Citations: 623 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 13-16468
Parties: John Oliver SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, in his official capacity as Warden @ ESP; Robert Bannister; Steven MacArthur; Max Carter, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 322–324

Head Matter:
John Oliver SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, in his official capacity as Warden @ ESP; Robert Bannister; Steven MacArthur; Max Carter, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 22, 2015.
Filed Nov. 20, 2015.
Cal J. Potter, III, Esquire, Potter Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Snow appeals from the district court's judgment entered after a jury verdict denying Snow relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, ¿nd we affirm.
We dismiss Snow's claim for injunctive relief as moot since Snow's counsel indicated at oral argument that the hip surgery Snow sought as relief has been performed. NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.2007) ("A case is moot on appeal if no live controversy remains at the time the court of appeals hears the case").
We affirm the district court's pretrial evidentiary rulings as within its wide discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that a district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion). In addition, as to evidence Snow is on death row, the district court judge encouraged Snow's counsel to propose a limiting instruction — which he did not do. Snow's opening brief fails to show any prejudice.
Finally, we decline to reach Snow's argument that the district court abused its discretion in its discussions of the case with the jury since Snow failed to object at the time of the alleged errors and has not argued plain error on appeal. Rothman v. Hosp. Serv. of S. Cal., 510 F.2d 956, 960 (9th Cir.1975) ("The rule in this circuit is that appellate courts will not consider arguments that are not properly raise[d] in the trial courts"); see Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) ('We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief').
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.