Case Name: Nathaniel MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MACARTHUR, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 09-15425
Parties: Nathaniel MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MACARTHUR, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
Nathaniel MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MACARTHUR, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-15425.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Nathaniel Morris, pro se.
Leeann Phouthavongsay, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, 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
Nathaniel Morris, a Nevada 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 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 Morris failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to Morris's alleged infection. See id. at 1057 (stating that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) ("A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.").
Morris's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.