Case Name: Ted Darnell DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. ALVARADO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 465 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 10-56245
Parties: Ted Darnell DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. ALVARADO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Ted Darnell DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. ALVARADO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-56245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
Ted Darnell Daniels, Imperial, CA, pro se.
William N. Frank, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Ted Darnell Daniels, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district courts's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Alvarado and Harris because Daniels failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants used physical force "maliciously and sadistically to cause him harm" rather than "in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline!.]" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Daniels's motion for additional time to serve the summons and complaint on defendant Roberts because Daniels failed to show good cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511-12 (9th Cir.2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors to establish good cause).
Daniels's remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery and eviden-tiary issues, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.