FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRED JAY JACKSON, No. 09-17366
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00961-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT BOWMAN, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Fred Jay Jackson, 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 in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
*
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 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 Jackson
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating his broken finger. See id. at 1057. A difference
in opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an
Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 1059-60. Moreover, a “showing of medical
malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation
under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery
because Jackson did not show how allowing him additional discovery would have
precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th
Cir. 1998).
Jackson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Jackson’s request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17366