Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Bartholomew LAYDEN IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit; Subodh Shroff, Doctor at Meadows Unit, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15896
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 6, 2017
    Thomas Bartholomew Layden, IV, Pro Se
    Joseph Scott Conlon, Renaud Cook Dru-ry Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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

Arizona state prisoner Thomas Bartholomew Layden IV 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Layden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in managing Layden’s pain. See id. at 1058-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.