Case Name: Steve WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aron ROTMAN, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-24
Citations: 678 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 15-16925
Parties: Steve WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aron ROTMAN, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Steve WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aron ROTMAN, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16925
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 24, 2017
Steve Wilhelm, Pro Se
Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, 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
California state prisoner Steve Wilhelm 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rotman because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rot-man was deliberately indifferent by causing a delay in Wilhelm's hernia treatment. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference requires showing of harm "caused by" the alleged indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) ("A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established."), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Wilhelm's request for entry of default judgment, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.