Case Name: David RADEMAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden; 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 173
Docket Number: No. 11-17223
Parties: David RADEMAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 173–173

Head Matter:
David RADEMAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17223.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 26, 2012.
David Rademaker, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Matthew Marvin Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
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
David Rademaker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 on Rademaker's claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, because Rademaker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety from slippery, shower floors. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ("a prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety").
Rademaker's remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.