Case Name: Anthony Gregory LAPOINTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown BIENOVIDAS, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-10
Citations: 693 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 14-16713
Parties: Anthony Gregory LAPOINTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown BIENOVIDAS, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
Anthony Gregory LAPOINTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown BIENOVIDAS, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16713
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 6, 2017
Filed July 10, 2017
Anthony Gregory LaPointe, Pro Se
Claudia Acosta Collings, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Anthony Gregory LaPointe appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment grant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious threats to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because LaPointe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously ignored, failed to respond, or were otherwise deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to LaPointe. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ("[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying LaPointe's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion be cause LaPointe failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & Cty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to "identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment").
We reject as without merit LaPointe's contention that the district court erred by withdrawing its referral of defendants' summary judgment motion to a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 264, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.