Anthony Lapointe v. Unknown Bienovidas

Ninth Circuit

Anthony Lapointe v. Unknown Bienovidas

693 F. App'x 629

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2017

Docket14-16713

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 629 (Anthony Lapointe v. Unknown Bienovidas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Lapointe v. Unknown Bienovidas, 693 F. App'x 629 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Anthony Gregory LaPointe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment grant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious threats to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because LaPointe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously ignored, failed to respond, or were otherwise deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to LaPointe. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying LaPointe’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion be *630 cause LaPointe failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & Cty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).

We reject as without merit LaPointe’s contention that the district court erred by withdrawing its referral of defendants’ summary judgment motion to a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 264, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Anthony Gregory LaPointe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment grant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to serious threats to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because LaPointe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously ignored, failed to respond, or were otherwise deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to LaPointe. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying LaPointe’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion be *630 cause LaPointe failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & Cty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).

We reject as without merit LaPointe’s contention that the district court erred by withdrawing its referral of defendants’ summary judgment motion to a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 264, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-lapointe-v-unknown-bienovidas-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack