Ruizv.Akintola

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITNov 2, 2011
No. 10-16516 (9th Cir. 2011)
No. 10-16516457 Fed. Appx. 637

No. 10-16516 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00318-JAM-GGH

11-02-2011

BRANDON RUIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. AKINTOLA; NASEER, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted October 25, 2011

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Brandon Ruiz 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ruiz did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health or safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Ruiz's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.