FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENGHIS KHAN A. STEVENSON, No. 09-56560
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01619-W-NLS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. HARMON, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Genghis Khan A. Stevenson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
correctional officers retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
*
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).
Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Stevenson contends that the district court abused its discretion by entering
summary judgment before he had adequate time to conduct discovery and oppose
summary judgment. There was no abuse of discretion because almost seven
months elapsed between the time the motion for summary judgment was filed and
when it was granted, the district court granted Stevenson’s motion for an extension
of time and motion for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f),
and Stevenson did not make any further requests for additional time to file an
opposition. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 1998)
(courts of appeal generally do not consider an issue not addressed in district court).
Stevenson’s contention that the district court erred by adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendations before Stevenson had the
opportunity to file objections is also unpersuasive because he was in possession of
the report and recommendation for over two weeks before objections were due and
did not seek additional time to file objections. See id.; see also United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must
review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection
is made, but not otherwise.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-56560