Case ID: f-appx_609/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugo LUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy ADAMS, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Hugo Lua, Stockton, CA, pro se.
    Daniel B. Alweiss, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Hugo Lua appeals pró 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lua failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Adams acted with deliberate indifference to Lua’s chronic back pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in opinion are insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Lua’s motion for default, filed on June 23, 2014, is denied.

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