Case Name: Robert Lionel SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVIN, Chief Medical Officer (CSP); et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-19
Citations: 509 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 10-56160
Parties: Robert Lionel SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVIN, Chief Medical Officer (CSP); et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 509
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Robert Lionel SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVIN, Chief Medical Officer (CSP); et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56160.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 19, 2013.
Robert Lionel Sanford, Chino, CA, pro se.
Martin Kosla, Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Former California state prisoner Robert Lionel Sanford appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to 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 court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Sanford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Sanford's need for post-operative care, including in addressing a nasal bleed, after he had surgery for chronic sinus problems. See id. at 1057-58 (neither negligence nor difference of opinion between doctor and prisoner concerning the appropriate course of treatment amounts to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.