NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY L. RODRIGUES, No. 17-15549
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08141-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, State of
Arizona Dept. of Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Anthony L. Rodrigues, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging claims under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
*
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).
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodrigues’s ADA claim because
Rodrigues failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants denied him a
reasonable accommodation because of his alleged disability. See Simmons v.
Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
elements of ADA claim in prison context and concluding that “even assuming that
transfer to some other prison facility might have been a reasonable
accommodation, there is no evidence . . . that such denial was because of or
motivated by [pretrial detainee’s disability]”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Ryan,
Diaz, and Rider because Rodrigues failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Rodrigues’s
health. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent
only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health); see
also Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (recognizing Eighth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference based on exposure to levels of environmental
tobacco smoke).
Rodrigues forfeited his opportunity to appeal the denial of his motions for
appointment of counsel, experts, and to supplement his complaint because
2 17-15549
Rodrigues did not file any objections to the magistrate judge’s orders on these
motions. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]
party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive
order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to
appellate review of that order.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15549