Case Name: Chornor BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chana WHITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-21
Citations: 320 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 07-35416
Parties: Chornor BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chana WHITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Chornor BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chana WHITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-35416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 21, 2008.
Jeffry Keith Finer, Esq., Law Offices of Jeffry Finer, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mary C. Mclachlan, Esq., Attorney General of Washington, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chornor Brown, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, inter alia, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
Contrary to Brown's contentions, the record does not show that the district court failed to consider all of the facts submitted in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Further, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown's Eighth Amendment claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injury was sufficiently serious or whether defendants disregarded his medical condition. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.