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.

T he pane l una ni 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 BO BBY J EH U STRO U P, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. G R E G O R Y M A R T I N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 17247 D . C . N o . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 5 6 2 - H D MWGC 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da H ow ar d D . M c K i bbe n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N evada s t at e pri soner B ob by Je hu S troup appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s s e r i o u s me d i c a l n e e d s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n 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 . T oguc hiv . Chung , 39 1 F . 3d 10 51 , 10 56 (9th C i r.



# FI LED OC T 04 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 17247 2 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause S troup fa i l ed to r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d an ts a c te dw ith d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce t o h i s st o m ach p ai n , w h i ch w as ev en tu al l y d i ag n o sedas a p e p tic u lc e r . See i d. a t 1 0 6 0 ( “D e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e is ah ig h le g a l s tan d ar d . A s how i ng of

m e di c a l m a l pr a c t i c e orne gl i ge nc e i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h a c o n s titu tio n a l d e p r iv a tio n u n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t.” ) ; Ja ckso n v. McIn to sh , 90 F . 3d 330, 332 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( t o e s t abl i s h tha tadi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on am o u n t edt o d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce, a p ri so n er m u stsh o w th atth e d efen d an t s’ chosen course of tre atm entw as m edi ca l l y unacc ept abl e and i n con sc i ou s di sr egar d of an exces si ve ri sk t o the pri soner’ s hea l th). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byc ons i de r i ng and di s c us s i ng S tr oup’ s s e a l e d m e di c a l r e c or ds i n c onne c t i on w i th de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

or s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. See Ka m a ka n a v . C ity& C o u n tyo f H o n o lu lu , 447 F . 3d 1172, 1178- 80, 1182 ( 9th. C i r . 2006) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t anda r d of

r e vi e w a nd di s c us s i ng the

“ c om pe l l i ng r e a s ons ” r e qui r e m e ntf ors e a l i ng r e c or ds a tt a c he d t o adi s pos i t i ve m ot i on ). W e d o n o t co n sid erS tro up ’s alleg atio n s c o n ce rn in g d ef en d an t M ar ti n ’s f o llo w - up c ar e f

r o m O c to b e r2 0 0 8 to F e b ru ary2 0 0 9 b e c au s e S tr o up e x p r e s s ly12- 17247 3 s ta te s in h is o p e n in g b r ie f th a t th o s e a lle g a tio n s a r e n o t p art o f th e c la im a t is s u e in th is ap p e a l. AF F I RME D.