Case Name: Edwin SEVRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-30
Citations: 475 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 11-15234
Parties: Edwin SEVRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
Edwin SEVRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15234.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 30, 2012.
Edwin Sevrence, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Nevada state prisoner Edwin Sevrence appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sevrence's deliberate indifference claims because Sevrence adduced no evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether ap-pellees were deliberately indifferent to Sevrence's medical condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (prisoner's disagreement with doctors' prescribed course of treatment will not establish deliberate indifference in the absence of evidence that treatment was medically unreasonable under the circumstances).
Sevrence's "motion to include new papers" is denied, and appellees' motion to strike the portions of Sevrenee's reply brief that include exhibits not contained in the district court record is granted. See Tonry v. Sec. Experts, Inc., 20 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir.1994) ("[It is a] basic tenet of appellate jurisprudence . that parties may not unilaterally supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the court below.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.