Court Opinion

ID: 4405656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-11 20:00:31.697156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:45.741272
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 11 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD LEE WHITE,                               No.    18-16899

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00573-MMD-
                                                WGC
 v.

ROMEO ARANAS; et al.,                           MEMORANDUM*

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 7, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Howard Lee White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

      *
             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).
court’s summary judgment in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs and negligence. 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 because White failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent or negligent to White’s dietary needs. 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); see also LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993);

DeBoer v. Senior Bridges of Sparks Family Hosp., 282 P.3d 727, 732 (Nev. 2012)

(setting forth the elements of a traditional negligence claim under Nevada law).

      White’s motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2