Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0779-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nehemiah ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. PENNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 8, 2010.
    Nehemiah Robinson, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Dayton Van Vranken Longyear, Esquire, Jennifer Marquez, Longyear, O’Dea & Lavra, LLP, Kevin W. Reager, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this is case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nehemiah Robinson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Togu-chi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Robinson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatment for his arthritis “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058 (explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

Robinson’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.