Gardell Cowart v. Ngozi Ignibnoza;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARDELL COWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NGOZI IGNIBNOZA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16740
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00004-AWI-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gardell Cowart 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 U.S.C.
§1291. We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16740
The district court did not err by refusing to compel defendants to produce
Cowart’s deposition transcript because Cowart failed to demonstrate how his
deposition testimony would have precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v.
Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that the burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to proffer
sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought would preclude summary
judgment).
Cowart has waived any challenge to the substance of the district court’s
summary judgment because he did not argue them in his opening brief. See Indep.
Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review
only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d
139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s
opening brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --