Dion

MEMORANDUM

California state prison Goldyn Cooper appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions regarding trial evidence and closing arguments, United States v. W.R. Grace, 504 F.3d 745, 759 (9th Cir.2007)(evidentiary rulings); United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 518 (9th Cir.1989)(control of closing arguments). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cooper’s claims against Olivas and Rogel because Cooper failed to allege their personal participation in the claimed deprivations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 , 1045 (9th Cir.l989)(“A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent…