Case Name: Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carman SUTLEY, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 412 F. App'x 936
Docket Number: No. 09-55545
Parties: Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carman SUTLEY, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 936–937

Head Matter:
Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carman SUTLEY, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-55545.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Clarence Daws, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Elizabeth Angres, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Clarence Davis, 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 in connection with his dental treatment. 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 for defendant because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his dental pain. See id. at 1057. A difference in medical opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1059-60; see also Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) ("A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a [section] 1983 claim."). Moreover, a "showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment." Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060.
Davis's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.