Case ID: f-appx_453/html/0707-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jamel WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason ROHER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-16807.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 11, 2011.
    Jamel Walker, Victorville, CA, pro se.
    Jarhett Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jamel Walker, 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 on Walker’s Eighth Amendment claim because Walker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Roher’s treatment of his hip injury constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058(a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Walker’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.