Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0622-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Gene LANCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUNG, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16109.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    David Gene Lancaster, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Matthew Marvin Grigg, Nancy E. Hud-gins, Law Offices Of Nancy E. Hudgins, Maya Pri-Tal, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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 David Gene Lancaster 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lancaster failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his Valley Fever-related meningitis. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lancaster’s motion to compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to deny discovery).

Lancaster’s argument regarding defendants’ failure to produce documents in response to his discovery requests is unpersuasive.

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