Case Name: Country Joe STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. MAR, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-30
Citations: 611 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 13-16834
Parties: Country Joe STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. MAR, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
Country Joe STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David A. MAR, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-16834.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed July 30, 2015.
Joe Stevens, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Nevada state prisoner Country Joe Stevens 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 Stevens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Mar provided treatment that was medically unacceptable and was in conscious disregard to an excessive risk to Stevens's health. See id. at 1058 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk of serious harm to an inmate's health, and a prisoner's disagreement with medical opinion is not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (when a prisoner alleges that delay of medical treatment evinces deliber ate indifference, he or she must show that the delay led to further injury).
We do not consider issues raised by Stevens in his opening brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.