Case Name: Andre Ramon CRAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. S.M. ROCHE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-07
Citations: 328 F. App'x 556
Docket Number: No. 08-17083
Parties: Andre Ramon CRAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. S.M. ROCHE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 556–556

Head Matter:
Andre Ramon CRAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. S.M. ROCHE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17083.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 7, 2009.
Andre Ramon Craver, Susanville, CA, pro se.
James W. Walter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Andre Ramon Craver, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 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 Craver failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his knee conditions. See id. at 1057-58 (explaining that prison officials must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm for their conduct to constitute deliberate indifference, and that a difference of medical opinion concerning treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We find unpersuasive Craver's contentions concerning his motion filed in district court for a single-cell assignment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.