FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO A. WILLIAMS, No. 13-15112
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00638-GEB-
KJN
v.
ALVARO C. TRAQUINA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mario A. Wiliams 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2013) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants caused any delay in scheduling his back surgery. See Starr v. Baca,
652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory
liability); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047,
1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth
non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).
Moreover, to the extent that defendants took any action in connection with
Williams’s back surgery, Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high
legal standard, and is met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to the inmate’s health; a mere difference in opinion concerning the
course of treatment is insufficient).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15112