Case Name: Frederick J. FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David KENNEY, Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 512 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 11-35595
Parties: Frederick J. FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David KENNEY, Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
Frederick J. FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David KENNEY, Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-35595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Frederick J. Fischer, Monroe, WA, pro se.
Kathryn M. Battuello, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Hendricks, Senior Counsel, Thomas Robinson O’Neill, Esquire, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Frederick J. Fischer appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 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), and we affirm.
The district properly granted summary judgment on Fischer's narcolepsy and skin infection claims because Fischer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to Fischer's condition. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (difference in opinion between the physician and the prisoner concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs); see also Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate's health or safety).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.