Case Name: Stephen BOGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BATTALINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-13
Citations: 55 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 01-56592; D.C. No. CV-96-02739-SVW
Parties: Stephen BOGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BATTALINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 868–869

Head Matter:
Stephen BOGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BATTALINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-56592.
D.C. No. CV-96-02739-SVW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.
Decided Feb. 13, 2003.
Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Stephen L. Bogovieh, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's sum mary judgment, Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because Bogovieh failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether prison officials acted with deliberate indifference in diagnosing and treating his back condition. See id. at 1130. Bogovich's disagreement as to his treatment plan does not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.