Hamilton

MEMORANDUM **

George Hamilton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for prison officials in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review Hamilton’s procedural challenges for abuse of discretion, see McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 199 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

Hamilton contends that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without first: (1) granting him a fourth extension of time to *349 file an opposition; (2) ruling on his third motion for appointment of counsel; and, (3) granting him leave to file a third-party complaint. These contentions lack merit.

Although the district court granted Hamilton three continuances, he failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Moreover, when the district court ruled on the motion, Hamilton did not have a pending motion for extension of time. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on the motion for summary judgment without Hamilton’s opposition. Cf. McElyea, 833 F.2d at 199 ; United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.), amended…