Case Name: Daniel S. SANDIGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. SAYRE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 658 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 15-15850
Parties: Daniel S. SANDIGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. SAYRE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 658
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
Daniel S. SANDIGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. SAYRE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15850
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 05, 2016
Daniel S. Sandigo, Pro Se
Amy Lo, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of- the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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 Daniel S. .San-digo 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sandigo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his shoulder injury. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (to establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a "sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Sandigo's contention that the district court failed to analyze evidence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.