United States v. 2020-12-10 | 18-16735 | ADAM MCADAMS V. CHARLES RYAN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADAM McADAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; RICHARD PRATT,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16735

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00337-SMM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Adam McAdams 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 affirm.

*
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

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-16735
McAdams failed to include any argument in his opening brief regarding the
district court’s grant of summary judgment, and thus has waived any challenge to
that issue. See McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 891 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009)
(arguments not raised in an appellant’s opening brief are waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McAdams’s motion
for a good faith discovery consultation with defendants. See Childress v. Darby
Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review); Hallett v.
Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the district court’s
discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest
showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
McAdams forfeited his opportunity to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders
denying McAdams’s motions to strike defendants’ filings, his motion for sanctions
against defendants’ counsel, and his motion for default judgment because
McAdams did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s orders. See Simpson v.
Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A] party who fails to
file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order with the district
judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that
order.”).

3 18-16735
We do not consider facts or documents that were not presented to the district
court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.