Case Name: Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 10-15155
Parties: Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Phillip J. ROSENBLUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 20, 2011.
Phillip J. Rosenblum, Delano, CA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Phillip J. Rosenblum, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Rosenblum's factual allegations and the attachments to the operative complaint show that defendants did not act with deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (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, and negligence or a difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that "we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint" in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief).
Rosenblum'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.