Case Name: Gerry JOHNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. ZAMORA, Registered Nurse, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-01
Citations: 700 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 17-55623
Parties: Gerry JOHNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. ZAMORA, Registered Nurse, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 733–733

Head Matter:
Gerry JOHNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. ZAMORA, Registered Nurse, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-55623
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 1, 2017
Gerry Johns, Pro Se
Terry Price, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Gerry Johns, 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johns failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Zamora was deliberately indifferent in treating Johns' forearm injury. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.