Ashton E. Cacho v. JOHNS, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHTON E. CACHO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHNS, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15023
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00201-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Ashton E. Cacho appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15023
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cacho failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his shoulder injury and pain, and whether any delay in
treatment resulted in further harm. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health; negligence or a difference of opinion concerning the
appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett
v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay leads to further
injury).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing further
discovery because Cacho did not show how additional discovery would defeat
summary judgment. See Qualls By & Through Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc.,
22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review; district court
properly denied motion under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (now Rule 56(d)) where
additional requested discovery would not have precluded summary judgment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --