Dumas

MEMORANDUM ***

Daniel Dumas appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, (2) denying his motion to amend his complaint, (3) granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (4) denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm the district court’s rulings.

With respect to the motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, which the district court construed as a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), Dumas failed to demonstrate (1) that he had diligently pursued his previous discovery opportunities, and (2) that the additional discovery, which the defendants produced prior to the summary judgment hearing, would have precluded summary judgment had it been produced earlier. See Qualls v. Blue Cross, 22 F.3d 839 , 844 (9th Cir.1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dumas’s motion to amend, which he filed just days before the summary judgment hearing, because amendment would have been futile, Caswell v. Calderon, 363 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir.2004), and would have substantially prejudiced the defendants. Schlacter-Jones v. General Tel., 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1991),…