Morgan

Smith v. Morgan

Good Law
15 F. App'x 456
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 20, 2001No. 00-35707; D.C. No. CV-99-05432-FDBCalifornia482 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Lee Smith, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, denial of his procedural due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and interference with his right of access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.

*458 As an initial matter, we note that Smith failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by June 8, 2000, despite the warning that non-opposition could be construed as consent to granting defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the magistrate judge could have properly granted summary judgment on this ground alone. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

Upon our review of Smith’s verified complaint, his May 9, 2000, response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and his June 27, 2000, objections to the magistrate…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.