Case Name: Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carol BRADSHAW, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-27
Citations: 558 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 12-56345
Parties: Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carol BRADSHAW, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 760–761

Head Matter:
Clarence DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carol BRADSHAW, Dentist, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-56345.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 27, 2014.
Clarence Davis, pro se.
Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Oren Rosen-thal, Reily & Jeffery, Northridge, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
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
Clarence Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 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 Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his decayed tooth. See id. at 1057 (discussing the standard for deliberate indifference and explaining that mere negligence does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.