Anthony Ammons v. C. Bakewell

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY AMMONS, No. 11-17534 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00544-KJM- DAD v. C. BAKEWELL; A. NANGALAMA, MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Anthony Ammons appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 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 Ammons failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Bakewell was deliberately indifferent in her treatment of his eye injury. See id. at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard). The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Ammons’s motion for summary judgment that he filed after the scheduling order deadline because Ammons failed to show “good cause” for the untimely filing. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating standard). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17534