Steven Vlasich v. BURT HOFFMAN, Dr., individually and in his official capacity

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVEN VLASICH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BURT HOFFMAN, Dr., individually and
in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17311
D.C. No. 1:99-cv-06472-OWW-
WMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Steven Vlasich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17311 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
evidentiary rulings. Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d
1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony from
Shuster and Rodriguez because it was irrelevant and cumulative. See Fed. R. Evid.
401-02, 701-02; Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.
2005) (“[T]he district court has broad authority to limit the number of witnesses on
a particular point to avoid cumulative evidence.”).
Vlasich’s remaining contentions, including those concerning Hoffman’s
testimony about his military service, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --