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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 27 2011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