Case Name: Diane REIMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-16
Citations: 476 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 11-16962
Parties: Diane REIMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Diane REIMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16962.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 16, 2012. .
Diane Reimers, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, 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
Diane Reimers, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference with regard to treatment she received for neck and spinal injuries. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reimers's deliberate indifference claim because Reimers failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with conscious disregard to her heath. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and safety; negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition is insufficient); see also Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (a difference of opinion between the physician and the prisoner concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.