FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROYALTON McCAMEY, No. 13-15648
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02553-KJM-
CMK
v.
FURMER; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Royalton McCamey 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 while he was detained in a county jail. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
*
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).
1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because McCamey
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted
with deliberate indifference by not providing him with surgery and a particular
pain medication in connection with his shoulder, knee, and finger injuries. See id.
at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of
and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a prisoner’s difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or
treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Simmons
v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F. 3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth
Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, applies to pretrial
detainees, we apply the same standards in both cases[.]” (internal citation
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McCamey’s
requests for appointment of counsel because McCamey failed to establish
“exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15648