Case Name: Pierre L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. LEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-19
Citations: 479 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 10-16737
Parties: Pierre L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. LEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 158–158

Head Matter:
Pierre L. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. LEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16737.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 19, 2012.
Pierre L. Hoffman, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Harry T. Gower, III, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
California state prisoner Pierre L. Hoffman 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 and safety. 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 Hoffman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety, and a mere difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Hoffman's motion for default, received on January 7, 2011, is ordered filed and is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.