William Roush v. C. Hayes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM FRANCIS ROUSH, No. 13-16390
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00286-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. HAYES, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner William Francis Roush appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant was
deliberately indifferent to Roush’s safety in connection with an assault by another
inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
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).
discretion a dismissal as a discovery sanction. Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g
Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Roush’s action
as a discovery sanction because Roush refused to comply with an order compelling
him to provide defendant with a medical records release. See id. (setting forth
factors to be considered before granting dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)).
We reject as without merit Roush’s contentions that the magistrate judge
improperly warned Roush that he could be subject to discovery sanctions, and that
the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on preliminary matters and to
recommend dismissal to the district judge.
We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See
Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).
Roush’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, and all pending motions, are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16390