Case Name: Ramiro VELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-25
Citations: 668 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 15-15432
Parties: Ramiro VELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
Ramiro VELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa WALSH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15432
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 25, 2016
Ramiro Vela, Carson City, NV, Pro Se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carson City, NV.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramiro Vela, a Nevada 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, Togucki v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent by changing his hypertension medication. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the.course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.