Case Name: Anthony O. LONGSTREET, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John VARGO, being sued as Dr. John Vargo, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-20
Citations: 14 F. App'x 895
Docket Number: No. 00-35830; D.C. No. CV-99-01354-HJF
Parties: Anthony O. LONGSTREET, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John VARGO, being sued as Dr. John Vargo, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 895–896

Head Matter:
Anthony O. LONGSTREET, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John VARGO, being sued as Dr. John Vargo, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-35830. D.C. No. CV-99-01354-HJF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2001.
Decided July 20, 2001.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony O. Longstreet, a former Oregon state prisoner and current Illinois state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of Oregon State Penitentiary physician John Vargo in Longstreet's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he received inadequate medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Because Longstreet failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that Dr. Vargo acted in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).
We decline to consider the delay in medical treatment claim raised by Longstreet for the first time on appeal. See Int'l Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.