22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4be,MEMORANDUM Nick William Woodall, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s rulings concerning discovery, including the imposition of discovery sanctions. See Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Woodall from using an expert witness at trial because Woodall failed to disclose the witness in a timely manner and failed to show that his error was substantially justified or harmless. See id. at 827 (affirming the exclusion of medical expert testimony following a delay in proper disclosure); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001) (this court affords “particularly wide latitude” to a district court’s decision to exclude testimony for failing to fulfill required disclosure requirements). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4eb,

MEMORANDUM

Nick William Woodall, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s rulings concerning discovery, including the imposition of discovery sanctions. See Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Woodall from using an expert witness at trial because Woodall failed to disclose the witness in a timely manner and failed to show that his error was substantially justified or harmless. See id. at 827 (affirming the exclusion of medical expert testimony following a delay in proper disclosure); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001) (this court affords “particularly wide latitude” to a district court’s decision to exclude testimony for failing to fulfill required disclosure requirements).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.