Court Opinion

ID: 4402120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-30 20:00:44.340809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:27.447146
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 30 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS,                           No. 18-17101

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00764-LJO-BAM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
A. JOHAL, Medical Doctor at North Kern
State Prison; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                   Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit
Judges.

      Mario Martinez Arias, 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 a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arias failed

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

deliberately indifferent to Arias’s need for post-operative treatment of his right

foot. See id. at 1057-60 (difference of opinion concerning course of treatment,

medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition

does not amount to deliberate indifference).

      We reject as meritless Arias’s contention that the district court erred by not

considering his statements as qualified medical opinions.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     18-17101