Case Name: Bryant Keith BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Do WILLIAMS, M.D., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 694 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 16-16847
Parties: Bryant Keith BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Do WILLIAMS, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 513–513

Head Matter:
Bryant Keith BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Do WILLIAMS, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16847
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 18, 2017
Bryant Keith Brown, Pro Se
Jennifer J. Nygaard, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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 Bryant Keith Brown 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 Brown failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant acted with deliberate indifference by denying Brown's requests for alternative restraints. See id. at 1058-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; 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.