T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. ** S i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P AT R I C K B R AD Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. T I MOT HY F I S HB AC K; J E S US J UA R E Z ; S I MON V I L L A; DE P AR T ME NT OF C OR R E C T I ON S AN D R E HA B I L I T AT I ON , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15609 D. C. No . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 1 3 6 - ALA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A rthurL . A l ar c ón, C i r c ui tJudge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 *** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED AU G 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P atri ck B ra dy, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e ntt o D e f e ndant s i n B r a dy ’ s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o s u m m aryju d g m e n t. L ovell v. Cha nd ler , 3 0 3 F. 3 d1 0 3 9 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tB r a dydi d notr a i s e atr i abl e i s s ue a s to w h e th e rD e f

e n d an ts w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t. B r a d y ’s d is a g r e e m e n t w ith p r is o n d o c to r s r e g ar d in g h is a c c e s s to R ita lin m e d ic a tio n d o e s n o t c o n s titu te del i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence t o h i s A tt ent i on D ef i ci tand H yper ac t i vi ty D i sorder ( “A D H D ” ) . Se e Sa n c h ezv . V ild , 891 F . 2d 240, 242 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ( adi f f e r e nc e of o p in io n r e g ar d in g m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . M or e ove r , w he the rD e f e ndant s ha d aw r i tt e n pol i c ydi s c ont i nui ng R i t a l i n i n the C a l i f orni apr i s on s y s t e m i s notam a t e r i a l i s s ue of f a c tbe c aus e B r a dydoe s not d e m o n s tr a te th a t R ita lin w a s th e o n lyw ayto tr e a t B r a d y ’s A D H D . R a th e r , it is u n d is p u te dth a t D e f

e n d an ts p r e s c r ib e dan o th e rA D H D m e d ic a tio n an dc o n tin u e dto tr e a t B r a d y ’s c o n d itio n . Se e id . T o the e xt e ntB r a dya tt e m pt s t o appe a l the de ni a l of ac l a i m unde rthe A m e r i c ans w i th D i s abi l i t i e s A c t( “ A D A ” ) , thi s c ont e nt i on f a i l s be c aus e he doe s not devel op any argum ent s on app ea l ; al l of hi s s ub st ant i ve ar gu m ent s on app ea l09- 15609 3 c o n c e rn h is c la im s u n d e rs e c tio n 1 9 8 3 , n o t th e A D A . Se e U n ite d Sta tes v . Kim b le , 1 0 7 F .3 d7 1 2 , 7 1 5 n .2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “b e c au s e th is ar g u m e n t w a s n o t c o h e r e n tly devel op ed i n h i s bri ef

s on app ea l , w e dee m i tt o h ave been abandon ed. ”) . F in a lly , B r a d y ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile dto v ie w th e f

a c ts in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o r ab le to B r a d yis w ith o u t m e r it. AF F I RME D.