Case Name: Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FISHER, Defendant-Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 308 F. App'x 191
Docket Number: No. 07-15398
Parties: Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FISHER, Defendant—Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz; et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 191–191

Head Matter:
Benjamin ADAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FISHER, Defendant—Appellee, and Teresa A. Schwartz; et al., Defendants.
No. 07-15398.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
Benjamin Adams, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Oliver R. Lewis, Esq., Attorney General’s Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Benjamin Adams, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant 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 Adams failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant acted with deliberate indifference by changing Adams's insulin schedule. See id. at 1057 (explaining that prison officials must know of and disregard an excessive risk of harm for their conduct to constitute deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.