FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY LAYTHEN BINFORD, No. 15-35874
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-05103-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KENNEY, Medical Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bobby Laythen Binford, a Washington 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 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Binford
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his Hepatitis C. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts
with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a difference of opinion are insufficient
to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Binford’s motion to
compel discovery because the denial of the motion did not result in actual and
substantial prejudice, as the discovery Binford sought would not preclude summary
judgment. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth
standard of review for denial of motion to compel discovery and explaining that
trial court’s broad discretion to deny discovery will not be disturbed except for
clearest showing that denial resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the
complaining litigant). Moreover, Binford did not file a motion to continue
summary judgment as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35874