FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD EUGENE CHAMPION, No. 09-55651
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06989-JFW-E
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MURPHY, Dentist,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Richard Eugene Champion, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
violation of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
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 on the deliberate
indifference claim because Champion failed to raise a triable issue as to whether
defendant was deliberately indifferent to Champion’s dental needs. See id. at 1057
(explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety); Franklin v.
Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A difference of
opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding
treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the race
discrimination claim because Champion failed to raise a triable issue as to whether
defendant acted with discriminatory intent. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S.
229, 238-40 (1976) (explaining that a plaintiff must show discriminatory intent to
establish an equal protection claim); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency,
261 F.3d 912, 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that conclusory statements
unsupported by facts are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation
claim because Champion failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant
2 09-55651
engaged in any adverse action because of Champion’s prison grievances or
complaints to the Prison Law Office. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of a retaliation claim).
To the extent Champion raises additional claims on appeal, we do not
consider them because they were not adequately raised in the district court. See
Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1111 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001).
Champion’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-55651