Case Name: Gilbert F. COLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSON, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 642 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 14-17376
Parties: Gilbert F. COLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSON, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 792–792

Head Matter:
Gilbert F. COLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERSON, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 22, 2016.
Gilbert F. Colon, Folsom, CA, pro se.
Jesse Manuel Rivera, Esquire, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Gilbert F. Colon, a California 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 Colon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Colon's back condition. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.