Case Name: Robert Eugene GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John P. WOLHER, Dr., Health Care Provider at ASPC-Eyman, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 13-16017
Parties: Robert Eugene GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John P. WOLHER, Dr., Health Care Provider at ASPC-Eyman, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
Robert Eugene GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John P. WOLHER, Dr., Health Care Provider at ASPC-Eyman, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-16017.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 21, 2014.
Robert Eugene Garrett, pro se.
Stephen William Tully, Esquire, Hin-shaw & Culberton LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, 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
Robert Eugene Garrett, an Arizona 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 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 because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his lower back injury or pain. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and safety; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of medical opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner "must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances" and "that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner's] health").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.