Jackmon
Jackmon v. Manabe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Bernard Jackmon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of due process, retaliation, and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo. Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The record shows that defendants timely moved for summary judgment more than twenty days after commencement of the action and Jackmon received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). The district court, therefore, properly considered the defendants’ summary judgment motion. See G & G Fire Sprinklers v. Bradshaw, 156 F.3d 893 , 904-05 (9th Cir.1998).
Because Jackmon never submitted a Rule 56(f) declaration indicating why he needed further discovery, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jackmon’s motion to extend the discovery period. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f); Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1994).