FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL, No. 14-15447
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00030-LRH-
WGC
v.
ROBERT BANNISTER, Dr.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher O’Neill, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (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. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because O’Neill
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating his Hepatitis C and associated pain. See id. at
1057 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health” (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted)); see also Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir.
2014) (“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner – or between
medical professionals – concerning what medical care is appropriate does not
amount to deliberate indifference.” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying O’Neill’s motion to
amend because it sought to add a “separate, distinct and new cause of action.”
Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (standard of review); see
also United States ex rel. Wulff v. CMA, Inc., 890 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1989)
(“The erroneous characterization of the corrected pleading as an amended
complaint rather than as a supplemental pleading is immaterial.” (internal citations
2 14-15447
and quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15447