Case Name: Dexter BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sahir NASEER, M.D., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-05
Citations: 698 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 16-17073
Parties: Dexter BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sahir NASEER, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
Dexter BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sahir NASEER, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17073
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 5, 2017
Dexter Brown, Stockton, CA, pro se.
Oliver Robert Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Dexter Brown 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Naseer was "subjectively aware" that his failure to order requested testing and his order to restrict Brown's fluid intake "created a substantial risk of harm" to Brown. See id, at 1060; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ("[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment."); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner and medical staff does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim).
We reject as unsupported by the record Brown's contention that he alleged a due process claim.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).