Adams

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Francis Cummings, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have juris *620 diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings because Cummings did not demonstrate prejudice. See McEuin v. Crown Equipment Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring that to reverse on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling, the court must conclude not only that the district court abused its discretion, but also that the error was prejudicial).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cummings’ untimely discovery requests where he did not demonstrate how additional discovery would have affected the outcome of his case. See Blackburn v. U.S., 100 F.3d 1426, 1436 (9th Cir.1996) (observing that a district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery and abuses its discretion only where the prisoner shows he diligently pursued discovery opportunities and additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment).

The district…