Case Name: Vance Edward JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FORTUNE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-30
Citations: 678 F. App'x 486
Docket Number: No. 16-15965
Parties: Vance Edward JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FORTUNE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 486–486

Head Matter:
Vance Edward JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FORTUNE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15965
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 30, 2017
Vance Edward Johnson, Pro Se
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing 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 a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his chronic pain. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject as without merit Johnson's contention that the district court improperly failed to consider his objections to the findings and recommendations.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.