Court Opinion

ID: 9375026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:55.235009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.385273
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD JOSHUA SMITH,                            No. 22-16225

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00420-TLN-EFB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
OMONIYI AKINTOLA,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Donald Joshua Smith 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. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d

      *
             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).
1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Akintola was

deliberately indifferent in treating Smith’s medical conditions. See Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that 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                                      22-16225