Case Name: Terrill D. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-25
Citations: 301 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 07-15794
Parties: Terrill D. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Terrill D. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-15794.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
Terrill D. Jones, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Thomas A. Blake, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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:
Terrill D. Jones, 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 in favor of defendants because Jones failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See id. at 1057 (deliberate indifference standard).
We do not consider any documents attached to Jones's briefs that were not before the district court at the tune of summary judgment. See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2003).
Jones has failed to present any argument or authority regarding discovery and amendment of the complaint. See Milne v. Hillblom, 165 F.3d 733, 736 n. 6 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that if no argument or authority is presented in support of a contention, we do not consider it).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.