Case Name: Maurice MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 981
Docket Number: No. 08-15984
Parties: Maurice MACK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 981–981

Head Matter:
Maurice MACK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael L. FRIEDMAN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-15984.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Maurice Mack, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Donn Robert Duncan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUMN
Maurice Mack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mack failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his wrist injury. See id. at 1057 ("Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.