Case Name: Frank Eugene WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HITE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-20
Citations: 14 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 00-16425. D.C. No. CV-00-20467-JF
Parties: Frank Eugene WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HITE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
Frank Eugene WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HITE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-16425. D.C. No. CV-00-20467-JF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2001.
Decided July 20, 2001.
Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Frank Eugene Wingfield, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
Because Wingfield alleged that Hite's actions were at the most negligent and did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the district court did not err by dismissing Wingfield's complaint. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.