Case Name: Mario A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvaro C. TRAQUINA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-20
Citations: 599 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 14-16188
Parties: Mario A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvaro C. TRAQUINA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
Mario A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvaro C. TRAQUINA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16188.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 20, 2015.
Mario A. Williams, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Benjamin Robert Dore, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Mario A. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation in connection with the treatment of his right hand. 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 for defendants because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk to his health. See id. at 1057 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard a "substantial risk of serious harm" to prisoner); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics Ch Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) ("To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.