James D. Maciel, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James K. Rowland, Jack Regan, B. Barbay; v. Bluestein;robert Borg, Eddie Ylst, J.m. Ratele, B. Huston, D. Glenn,h. Bard, T. Prebula; G. Clift, M. Loftin, W. Hale, K.w.prunty; Thomas Hornung; Q.e. Crews, Jr.; C.w. Armstrong;j.e. Johnson, J.w. Dresbach, W. Raupe, Defendants-appellees, 122 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

James D. Maciel, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in favor of defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law, see Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 506 (1996), and we affirm.

We conclude that, because Maciel failed to show actual and substantial prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maciel's motion for a continuance to allow time for additional discovery. See Martel v. County of Los Angeles, 56 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 381 1995).

We reject Maciel's contention regarding notice of the requirements for response to a summary judgment motion because the district court did not grant a motion for summary judgment.

We agree with the district court that Maciel failed to present evidence at trial to show that defendants personally participated in the alleged retaliatory actions. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Maciel also failed to present evidence to show that defendants conspired to retaliate against him. See Pierce, 76 F.3d at 1037. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting judgment as a matter of law to defendants. See id.

AFFIRMED.¹