Case Name: Jonathan LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MEKEMSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 08-16506
Parties: Jonathan LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MEKEMSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Jonathan LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MEKEMSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16506.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Jonathan Love, Susanville, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Jonathan Love, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Love's deliberate indifference claims because the allegations set forth in his amended complaint and the attachments thereto state, at most, a claim for negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) ("A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment."). Moreover, a difference in opinion between Love and the prison physicians about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1058.
Love's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.