Case ID: f-appx_470/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard TERFLINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. SAYRE, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Richard Terflinger, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Matthew Roman, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, Amelia F. Burroughs, Michael William Morrison, Janssen Malloy LLP, Eureka, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Terflinger, 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 Terflinger failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants treatment of his degenerative joint disease in his left knee 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).

Terflinger’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.