Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David MADDOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    David Maddox, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    James W. Walter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Maddox, a 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against defendants Neubarth and Huang because Maddox failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their treatment of his leg problems constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1059-60 (concluding that a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against defendant Lewis because Maddox failed to present any evidence supporting his claim that Lewis violated his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 682-33 (9th Cir.1988) (explaining that a state official is liable under § 1983 only if his actions cause the deprivation of a constitutional right).

Maddox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Maddox’s pending motion is denied.

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