Court Opinion

ID: 4162859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-24 21:05:56.070206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:47.432313
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 24 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE JENKINS,                             No. 16-15674

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00596-KJM-AC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RON BARNES, Warden, High Desert State
Prison; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Robert Lee Jenkins 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 because Jenkins

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Miranda

acted with deliberate indifference by changing Jenkins’s pain medication and

discontinuing Jenkins’s authorization for a cane and back brace. See id. at 1058-60

(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,

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

deliberate indifference).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   16-15674