Genghis Khan Stevenson v. Duran Harmon , 399 F. App'x 274 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENGHIS KHAN A. STEVENSON, No. 09-55626
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-CV-00277-W-PCL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DURAN HARMON, Correctional Officer,
as an individual and in his official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Genghis Khan A. Stevenson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
correctional officers used excessive force against him. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Childress v. Darby
Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Stevenson contends that the district court abused its discretion by entering
summary judgment before he had adequate time to conduct discovery. There was
no abuse of discretion because Stevenson did not seek a continuance under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and because the district court granted Stevenson’s
motions for additional time to file his opposition and his objections. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(f); Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 1998) (courts
of appeal generally do not consider an issue not addressed in district court).
Stevenson’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by not
considering evidence, first submitted in his objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendations, is also unpersuasive. See United States v. Howell,
231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e conclude that a district court has
discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a
party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.”). Moreover, the record
reflects that the district court reviewed Stevenson’s objections and the evidence
attached thereto.
Stevenson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-55626