Case Name: Arthur L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOEHRING, Medical Doctor; Corona, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-04
Citations: 490 F. App'x 75
Docket Number: No. 11-17973
Parties: Arthur L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOEHRING, Medical Doctor; Corona, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 75–75

Head Matter:
Arthur L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOEHRING, Medical Doctor; Corona, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17973.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 4, 2013.
Arthur L. Johnson, pro se.
Lakeysia Rene Beene, Kathleen Jane Williams, Martha M. Stringer, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Arthur L. Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and a state law negligence claim arising from treatment he received from defendants while incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Doehring on the state law negligence claim because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of causation. See Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir.2003) (stating elements for a negligence claim under California law); Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11, 15 (2001) (providing that, on the issue of causation in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must introduce evidence that it is more likely than not that defendant caused the injury; otherwise, defendant is entitled to judgment). Because Johnson expressly waived his claim against Corona on appeal, the judgment is final as to Corona, and it is now final as to Johnson based on this memorandum.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.