Mario Ortega v. Corcoran State Prison

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO TIMMOTHY ORTEGA, No. 10-17016 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01531-MJS v. MEMORANDUM * CORCORAN STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ** Submitted July 12, 2011 *** Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Mario Timmothy Ortega, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Ortega consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ortega’s amended complaint because his allegations, at most, showed a difference of opinion regarding the treatment of his eye. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a difference of opinion about medical care is “insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference”). Ortega’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-17016