Anthony Ammons v. C. Bakewell; A. Nangalama

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY AMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. BAKEWELL; A. NANGALAMA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17534
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00544-KJM-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17534 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 of 2 --