FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID MADDOX, No. 08-17374
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:02-cv-05225-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge,** Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 ***
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to proceed
before a magistrate judge.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PDM/Research
David Maddox, a California state prisoner, 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 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
defendants Neubarth and Huang because Maddox failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether their treatment of his leg problems constituted
deliberate indifference. See id. at 1059-60 (concluding that a difference of opinion
concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
defendant Lewis because Maddox failed to present any evidence supporting his
claim that Lewis violated his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d
628, 622-33 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a state official is liable under § 1983
only if his actions cause the deprivation of a constitutional right).
Maddox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Maddox’s pending motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.
PDM/Research 2 08-17374