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:T440,MEMORANDUM 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 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 Shus-ter 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T472,

MEMORANDUM

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 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 Shus-ter 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.

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