Opinion
No. 08-17126.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 3, 2010.
Christopher Lee Outley, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Oliver Robert Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02271-MCE-CMK.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Christopher Lee Outley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants and from the order denying his motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order granting summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion and proper application of legal principles an order denying a preliminary injunction, Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1298 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because evidence of negligence and of a difference of medical opinion is insufficient to show deliberate indifference. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights), rev'd on other grounds, WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a difference of opinion regarding the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
"[T]he district court employed the proper preliminary injunction standard and . . . correctly apprehended the underlying legal issues in the case," and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Outley's motion for a preliminary injunction. Earth Island Inst, 351 F.3d at 1298.
Outley's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.