Opinion
Submitted October 21, 1996.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-90-00042-SMM; Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Ariz. [Appealing after remand from 990 F.2d 1258].
AFFIRMED.
Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
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.
William David Hill, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in Hill's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hill alleged that while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Coconino County Jail, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that he was unconstitutionally shackled to a hospital bed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
On October 24, 1994, Hill notified this court that he intended to appeal the district court's judgment only as to those defendants listed in our caption as "defendants-appellees." Because of this clear statement and because Hill's opening brief deals only with these defendants, we deem all other issues, including as to other defendants, abandoned. See, e.g., Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir.1988).
The district court did not include Officer Manning, badge # 303, on the judgment entered on July 25, 1994. Officer Manning, however, was included in the defendants' motion for summary judgment (CR 410 at p. 17). Therefore, we consider this omission as a clerical error and construe the judgment as final to all defendants and all claims.
After a de novo review of the record, see Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995), we conclude that Hill failed to controvert the evidence that the Coconino County defendants provided timely and appropriate care for his medical needs. Similarly, we conclude that Hill failed to controvert the evidence that the Coconino County defendants demonstrated legitimate reasons for shackling Hill to his hospital bed. Accordingly, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum of decision and order entered on July 25, 1994.
We have considered Hill's remaining contentions and reject them as wholly without merit.
All pending motions are denied.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Hill's request for oral argument is denied.
Because of our disposition of this appeal, we do not consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), to this appeal.