Case Name: Josh DONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-03
Citations: 502 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 11-35802
Parties: Josh DONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
Josh DONLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35802.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
Josh Donley, Clallam Bay, WA, pro se.
Reid Hay, Ryan Joseph Lukson, Benton County Prosecutor’s Office, Kenneth Allen Miller, Miller Mertens Comfort Wagar & Kreutz, PLLC, Kennewick, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Washington state prisoner Josh Donley appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment 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 Donley failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Donley's serious medical needs related to the treatment of an infection in his left knee. See id. at 1057-58 (discussing objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim and explaining that inmate's difference of opinion with physician concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (isolated instances of negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference and delay in treatment is also insufficient absent proof that it resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain).
Donley's arguments that the district court improperly granted summary judgment after concluding that triable disputes existed and improperly resolved his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation are rejected.
We do not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, including Don-ley's evidentiary objections to defendants' statement of facts. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.