FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO FOSSELMAN, AKA Lorenzo No. 11-15682
Fosselman, Jr.,
D.C. No. 4:06-cv-00375-PJH
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
RANDOLPH GIBBS, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Fosselman, 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Fosselman
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Brager,
Lee, and Kates were aware of his need for surgery and therefore responsible for its
delay. See id. at 1057 (no deliberate indifference unless prison officials know of
and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to continue
defendants’ summary judgment motion because Fosselman failed to explain how
the additional information he sought would have been essential to defeat summary
judgment. See California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v.
Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing for an abuse of
discretion and setting forth relevant factors).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice
defendants Gibbs and Mattews for failure to effect timely service of process. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is
filed); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511-13 (9th Cir. 2001)
(discussing good cause and the district court’s broad discretion to extend time for
service or to dismiss without prejudice).
2 11-15682
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fosselman’s
motions for reconsideration because Fosselman failed to show grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and
setting forth requirements for reconsideration).
Fosselman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15682