Case Name: Jesse MANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. LEE, Health Care Manager; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-01
Citations: 456 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 10-16059
Parties: Jesse MANN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C. LEE, Health Care Manager; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Jesse MANN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C. LEE, Health Care Manager; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-16059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
Jesse Mann, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
John P. Devine, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Jesse Mann, 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 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 Mann failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his back condition. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and safety; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.1992) (no deliberate indifference where plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison doctor defendants were responsible for delays in treatment and surgery), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).
We do not consider Mann's contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.