Unpublished Disposition, 886 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 886 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1989)

Steven C. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Captain WALLACE, Kenneth Ducharme, Sgt. Lemaster, Sgt.Ingram, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3758.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 1989.* Decided Sept. 22, 1989.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WALLACE and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Steven C. Adams filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed his first and fourteenth amendment rights had been violated by officials of the Washington State Reformatory in connection with disciplinary actions taken against him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants and dismissed all claims. Adams appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

On appeal, Adams's sole argument is that the district court "prematurely dismissed all of [his] claims prior to his completing discovery." The magistrate had fixed a date for completion of all discovery and prior thereto the parties had engaged in extensive discovery. Adams failed to meet the cutoff date and meanwhile the appellees had moved for summary judgment.

Adams did not request a stay of the court's consideration of the summary judgment motion pending completion of discovery. Nor did he request a continuance under Rule 56(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Furthermore, he made no effort in his response to appellee's motion for summary judgment to argue that he had insufficient time and opportunity to conduct discovery. Thus, not only is appellant's argument untimely because it is raised for the first time on appeal, see Avila v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 651 F.2d 658, 660 (9th Cir. 1981), but also Adams "can hardly argue at this late date that the district court abused its discretion in ruling on the summary judgment motion [s] in light of the fact that [Adams himself] failed to pursue the procedural remedy which the federal rules so clearly provided." British Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981 (1979); Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Madariga, 851 F.2d 271, 277 (9th Cir. 1988) (Rule 56(f) motion is required).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3