Case Name: Anthony AMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. BAKEWELL; A. Nangalama, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-25
Citations: 481 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 11-17534
Parties: Anthony AMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. BAKEWELL; A. Nangalama, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
Anthony AMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. BAKEWELL; A. Nangalama, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17534.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
Anthony Ammons, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Martha M. Stringer, Christina Carroll, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
California state prisoner Anthony Am-mons appeals pro se from, the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ammons failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Bakewell was deliberately indifferent in her treatment of his eye injury. See id. at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Ammons's motion for summary judgment that he filed after the scheduling order deadline because Am-mons failed to show "good cause" for the untimely filing. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir.1992) (stating standard).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.