Case Name: Joseph B. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAHEY, Nurse; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-28
Citations: 559 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 13-15463
Parties: Joseph B. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAHEY, Nurse; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
Joseph B. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAHEY, Nurse; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
Joseph B. Matthews, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
William P. Brodbeck, Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Ann Hoffmann Larson, Esquire, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Joseph B. Matthews, a California state prisoner, 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 Matthews failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his right clavicle fracture. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner's health and safety; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing the requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
Matthews' contention that he did not receive proper notice of the requirements to oppose summary judgment is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.