Case Name: Thomas Bartholomew LAYDEN IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit; Subodh Shroff, Doctor at Meadows Unit, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-06
Citations: 693 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 16-15896
Parties: Thomas Bartholomew LAYDEN IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit; Subodh Shroff, Doctor at Meadows Unit, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
Thomas Bartholomew LAYDEN IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit; Subodh Shroff, Doctor at Meadows Unit, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15896
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 6, 2017
Thomas Bartholomew Layden, IV, Pro Se
Joseph Scott Conlon, Renaud Cook Dru-ry Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Arizona state prisoner Thomas Bartholomew Layden IV 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 because Layden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in managing Layden's pain. See id. at 1058-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.