FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 30 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GADDY, No. 15-16107
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-01642-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
N. ADAM,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,** Chief District
Judge.
California state prisoner Michael Gaddy (Gaddy) appeals an order granting
summary judgment in favor of Dr. N. Adam (Adam) in Gaddy’s civil rights action
alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
1. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, see Asarco LLC v.
Atl. Richfield Co., 866 F.3d 1108, 1118 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm. The district
court properly granted summary judgment because the record does not raise a
material issue of fact regarding deliberate indifference. See Colwell v. Bannister,
763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that an official acts with deliberate
indifference “only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to [a
prisoner’s] health and safety”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At
most, Dr. Adam displayed negligence or gross negligence when she discontinued
Gaddy’s waist-chain chrono. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.
2004) (noting that gross negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
additional discovery because Gaddy failed to specify any facts to be discovered
that would have established deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Adam. See
Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaddy’s motions
to compel responses to the interrogatories and to compel the production of medical
records because it remained unclear which responses Gaddy contended were
inadequate, and Gaddy is thus unable to establish that the denial resulted in
prejudice. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended
2
(requiring “the clearest showing that the denial of discovery result[ed] in actual and
substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3