Eugene Hamilton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. S.m. Sandor; Whitley; S. Borrego; Sheppard, Counselor,defendants-appellees,ands.k. Wentz; Charles D. Marshall, Warden, Defendants, 122 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Eugene Hamilton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)¹  and summary judgment in favor of defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's dismissal of claims as frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

We agree with the district court that Hamilton failed to state cognizable claims in his complaint regarding defendants Whitley, Borrego, and Sheppard. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992). Hamilton also failed to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim regarding defendant Sandor. See id. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over Hamilton's state assault claim because the district court had properly dismissed the related Eighth Amendment claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

We conclude that the district court did nor err by denying Hamilton's motions for discovery prior to summary judgment. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). Finally, we reject Hamilton's contention that the district court made improper credibility determinations by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Sandor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986).

AFFIRMED.²