Case Name: Samuel D. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Damanjeet CHUGH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-01
Citations: 457 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 10-35728
Parties: Samuel D. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Damanjeet CHUGH; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 457
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Samuel D. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Damanjeet CHUGH; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-35728.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
Samuel D. Martin, Walla Walla, WA, pro se..
Amy C. Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Samuel D. Martin, a Washington 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chugh's failure to order an x-ray "was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health." Id. at 1058 (explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Martin also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith's denial of his grievance amounted to deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and safety).
Martin'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.