Court Opinion

ID: 4459294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-26 21:00:38.077241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:35.773191
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 26 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEROME BORDELON,                                No.    19-15895

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05724-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL MINDORO, M.D.; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Jerome Bordelon appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant

Mindoro because Bordelon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Mindoro was deliberately indifferent to Bordelon’s heart issues. See id. at

1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a

difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to

deliberate indifference).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    19-15895