FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE DAVIS, No. 09-55545
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01415-CBM-
RNB
v.
CARMAN SUTLEY, Dentist, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Davis, 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 in connection with his dental treatment. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was
deliberately indifferent in treating his dental pain. See id. at 1057. A difference in
medical opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1059-60; see also Franklin v.
State of 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 [section] 1983 claim.”). Moreover, a
“showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a
constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at
1060.
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-55545