Case Name: Jimmie A. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FITTER, M.D. and H. Cassim, M.D., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-07
Citations: 409 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 09-56548
Parties: Jimmie A. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FITTER, M.D. and H. Cassim, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 137–137

Head Matter:
Jimmie A. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. FITTER, M.D. and H. Cassim, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-56548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 7, 2011.
Jimmie A. Smith, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Benjamin Barnouw, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Reily & Jeffery, Northridge, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, 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 Jimmie A. Smith 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 Smith did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded any excessive risks to him. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990) ("mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not suffice").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.