Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0792-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elbert Thomas MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald A. RAMBERG, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-56562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 26, 2012.
    Elbert Thomas Martin, Norco, CA, pro se.
    Mark Bradley Connely, Esquire, Molly E. Thurmond, Counsel, Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP, San Luis Obispo, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elbert Thomas Martin, a California state prisoner, 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 Martin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s treatment of his back and leg pain constituted deliberate indifference. 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).

Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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