Case ID: f-appx_457/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brandon RUIZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. AKINTOLA; Naseer, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-16516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2011.
    Brandon Ruiz, lone, CA, pro se.
    Oliver Robert Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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