Case Name: Byron Eugene JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. COX, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-01
Citations: 456 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 08-17149
Parties: Byron Eugene JOHNSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. COX, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
Byron Eugene JOHNSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. COX, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-17149.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
Byron Eugene Johnson, Susanville, CA, pro se.
Oliver Robert Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Byron Eugene Johnson, 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 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 Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his knee and leg problems. 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); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) ("Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.").
Johnson'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.