Case Name: Curtis Le'Barron GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne ULIT, Medical Physician at CSP Corcoran; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-17
Citations: 505 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 12-16119
Parties: Curtis Le’Barron GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne ULIT, Medical Physician at CSP Corcoran; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Curtis Le’Barron GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne ULIT, Medical Physician at CSP Corcoran; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
Curtis Le’Barron Gray, Delano, CA, pro se.
Martha M. Stringer, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
California state prisoner Curtis Le'Barron Gray appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his 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) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim against the appeals coordinator because Gray did not allege facts showing that the coordinator was deliberately indifferent to Gray's medical needs when determining that emergency processing of his grievance was not warranted. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058-59 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health and safety; negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ulit because Gray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delay in treatment of his retinal tear was harmful or led to further injury. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (delay of medical treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.