Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul E. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SEPULVEDA, M.D.; Pompan, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16487.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed July 8, 2014.
    Paul E. Ray, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
    Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Oren Rosenthal, Reily & Jeffery, Northridge, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul E. Ray, a former 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 under 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 because Ray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his biceps injury. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Wjhere a defendant has based his actions on a medical judgment that either of two alternative courses of treatment would be medically acceptable under the circumstances, plaintiff has failed to show deliberate indifference, as a matter of law.”); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

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