Case Name: Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIDA, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz, Warden, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 308 F. App'x 148
Docket Number: No. 08-15696
Parties: Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIDA, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz, Warden, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIDA, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz, Warden, Defendant.
No. 08-15696.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
Benjamin Adams, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Oliver Robert Lewis, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benjamin Adams, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Adams failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Adams's safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (explaining that "deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence," and that a prison official cannot be liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate's safety unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate's safety).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.