Case ID: f-appx_613/html/0677-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joshua D. BRODSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVEN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15009.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 03, 2015.
    Joshua D. Brodsky, Carson City, NV, pro se.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joshua D. Brodsky, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro ,se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011); Barren v. Hamngton, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brodsky’s action because Brodsky failed to allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brodsky leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and noting that district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).

Brodsky’s “motion for appeal for reconsideration denial,” filed on July 27, 2015, is denied.

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