FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL T. McLAUGHLIN, No. 13-16761
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00840-APG-
NJK
v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Michael T. McLaughlin appeals pro se from the
district court’s 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 do novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McLaughlin’s action because
McLaughlin failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his back injury. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if
they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a difference
of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor negligence in treating a medical
condition amounts to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be
futile.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McLaughlin’s
motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and factors for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16761