Case ID: f-appx_246/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jowell FINLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. GONZALES; et al., DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 06-15195.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
    Jowell Finley, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Alvin Gittisriboongul, Attorney General’s Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jowell Finley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in Finley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Finley’s failureto-protect claim because Finley did not raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety where defendants twice notified their commanding officer of Finley’s concerns regarding an alleged threat from his cellmate. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-39, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

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