Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy Allan DUNLAP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis FRICK, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-35225
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    Timothy Allan Dunlap, Boise, ID, Pro Se.
    Mark Kubinski, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Idaho Attoney General, Mary Karin Magnelli, AGID—Idaho Office of the Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Dunlap's requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief and in separate motions. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner Timothy Allan Dunlap appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant deprived him of food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 Dunlap failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether being provided two meals on weekend days constituted a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-part showing required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, including an objective showing that there was a sufficiently serious deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

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