Case Name: Elbert Lee VAUGHT, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-03
Citations: 502 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 12-15810
Parties: Elbert Lee VAUGHT, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 709–709

Head Matter:
Elbert Lee VAUGHT, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. MIRANDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15810.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
Elbert Lee Vaught, IV, San Diego, CA, pro se.
John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Valerie Ly, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, 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
California state prisoner Elbert Lee Vaught, IV, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment dismissing 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. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vaught failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delay he experienced in receiving physical therapy for his back injury led to further injury. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (prisoner alleging delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference must show delay led to further injury). Moreover, Vaught failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were involved in or had any control over the filling and distribution of prescription medication in the prison and thus were responsible for his failure to receive his prescribed pain medicine. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff must show personal involvement in alleged violations).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.