Case Name: Robert Lee JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron BARNES, Warden, High Desert State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 16-15674
Parties: Robert Lee JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron BARNES, Warden, High Desert State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
Robert Lee JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron BARNES, Warden, High Desert State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15674
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Robert Lee Jenkins, Pro Se
Shanan L. Hewitt, Esquire, Attorney, Jesse Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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 Lee Jenkins 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Miranda acted with deliberate indifference by changing Jenkins's pain medication and discontinuing Jenkins's authorization for a cane and back brace. See id. at 1058-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.