Opinion ID: 742870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

Text: 5 White contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for defendant on his claim that defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This contention lacks merit. 6 After the first incident, prison medical personnel examined White's bruises and fractured tooth and deemed his injuries medically unimportant. Following the second incident, prison medical personnel noted only a quarter-inch crack on White's lip, for which he refused medical treatment. White failed to submit evidence that his injuries resulted in serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). At most, White raised only a difference of medical opinion regarding his treatment. See Franklin v. Oregon, State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendant on White's deliberate indifference claim. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.1989).