Morgan

MEMORANDUM **

This is Morgan’s second appeal to this Court. See Morgan v. United States, 60 Fed.Appx. 180 (9th Cir.2003); Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776 (9th Cir.2003). In the first appeal, we “affirm[ed] the dis *294 trict court in every respect, except with regard to the court’s dismissal of the Bivens claim.” Morgan, 60 Fed.Appx. at 181 . In a separately filed published opinion, we remanded Morgan’s Bivens claim in order “to allow the development of a more complete factual record to determine whether implied consent was present here.” Morgan, 323 F.3d at 778 . The parties are familiar with the extensive history of this litigation and therefore we will not recount it again here. We affirm the district court in every respect.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morgan’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off and motion date. See Martel v. County of Los Angeles, 56 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.1995) (“[A] district court’s decision to deny a continuance sought for the purposes of obtaining discovery will be disturbed only ‘upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.’ ”) (Sablan…