Case ID: f-appx_592/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. LETOURNEAU; J. Silva, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 30, 2015.
    David Smith, Modesto, CA, pro se.
    Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, 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

David Smith, a former 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, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment béteause Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent by failing to remove Smith from his work assignment, or by requiring Smith to work in the sun. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and “may be found free from liability if [he or she] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted”).

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