Court Opinion

ID: 3187755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-22 20:05:33.685793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:03.495103
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 22 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERT F. COLON,                                No. 14-17376

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00932-AWI-
                                                 GSA
 v.

PETERSON, Dr.; et al.,                           MEMORANDUM*

               Defendants - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted March 15, 2016**

Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Gilbert F. Colon, a California state prisoner, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2004), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Colon failed

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

deliberately indifferent in treating Colon’s back condition. See id. at 1057-60 (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere

difference in medical opinion are insufficient).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    14-17376