FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE D. KNIGHT, No. 09-16909
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-
CMK
v.
LEA, Captain; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Eddie D. Knight, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Lea,
Oftiedahl, Gower, and Hale, because Knight failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether these defendants disregarded an excessive risk to his
safety or responded unreasonably to such risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837, 844-45 (1994) (a prison official is not liable for deliberate indifference
unless he knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate’s safety; and,
even if the official knew of such risk, he is not liable if he “responded reasonably
to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted”).
We do not address Knight’s claims against defendants Wong, Lyons, and
Simmerson, because Knight did not specifically and distinctly argue these claims
on appeal. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d
1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically
and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for
an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .” (citation
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Knight’s motions to
extend the discovery deadline and for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(f). See Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100
2 09-16909
(9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and Rule 56(f) requirements); Zivkovic v. S.
Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying a request to extend the discovery deadline because
the moving party failed to show “good cause” to modify the pretrial scheduling
order).
We are unpersuaded by Knight’s remaining contentions, including those
concerning amendment of the complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-16909