Case Name: Robert C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. ROWE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-26
Citations: 475 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 11-17037
Parties: Robert C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. ROWE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Robert C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. ROWE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17037.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 26, 2012.
Robert C. Jimenez, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Jennifer J. Nygaard, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
California state prisoner Robert C. Jimenez 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 Jimenez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in determining whether to continue his Hepatitis C treatment. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir.2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.