Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0165-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory Sylvester RIDEAU, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry SMALL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-56216.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2010.
    Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., Calipat-ria, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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

Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied Rideau a therapeutic medical diet beneficial for his heart condition because an inmate’s disagreement with his physicians or prison officials regarding the course of treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied Rideau single cell status and other treatment for his sleep disorder because, as he appears to concede on appeal, Rideau did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to this claim before filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice where prisoner does not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

Rideau’s remaining contentions, including those concerning a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that he tried to allege, are unpersuasive.

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