
    Gordon SEES THE GROUND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.C. EMERSON; Corrections Corporation of America, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35733.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Gordon Sees The Ground, Jr., Shelby, MT, pro se.
    Chad Eldon Adams, Browning, Kalec-zyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gordon Sees the Ground, Jr., a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro. se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Emerson because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Emerson was deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Corrections Corporation of America because plaintiff did not establish a constitutional violation by Emerson. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (per curiam).

Plaintiffs Motion to .Amend Affidavit and Relief, filed on November 3, 2014, and his Motion for Extension of Time, filed on November 21, 2014, are denied. Plaintiffs request in his reply brief to reject the answering brief is also denied because the answering brief was timely filed.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     