Case Name: Robert William WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-25
Citations: 444 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 10-15890
Parties: Robert William WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
Robert William WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15890.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 25, 2011.
Robert William Walters, lone, CA, pro se.
Virginia I. Papan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Robert William Walters, 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 to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Walters failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants' treatment of his shoulder and back injuries constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (inmate must establish that prison officials "possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind" to implicate the Eighth Amendment); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (deliberate indifference requires "a purposeful act or failure to respond to pain or possible medical need").
Walters'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.