Walker

MEMORANDUM **

G. Daniel Walker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for California Department of Corrections officials in Walker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when officials seized his eyeglasses and denied him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction *188 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Contrary to Walker’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the pre-trial scheduling order to permit defendants to file a motion for summary judgment because the request to modify the schedule was made following defendants’ counsel’s kidney surgery, the motion did not catch Walker by surprise, and the court noted that modification was in the interest of judicial economy. Cf. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Walker’s Eighth Amendment claim because Walker failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the temporary seizure of his eyeglasses resulted in a…