NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, No. 08-35889
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01803-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HERB SNIVELY, C.U.S.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, AND CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ralph Howard Blakely, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
*
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).
IL/RESEARCH
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order granting summary
judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), for an abuse of
discretion an order denying discovery under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998), and for the
proper application of legal principles the denial of a motion for a preliminary
injunction, Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1298 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
the evidence showed at most a difference of medical opinion which is insufficient
to show deliberate indifference. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th
Cir. 1989) (holding that a difference of opinion regarding the best course of
medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying Blakely’s untimely request for additional
discovery, or a continuance to permit him to conduct discovery, because Blakely
did not show how allowing him additional discovery would have precluded
summary judgment. See Margolis, 140 F.3d at 854 (upholding denial of Rule 56(f)
discovery motion where “appellants failed to identify facts, either discovered or
likely to be discovered, that would support their § 1983 claim”).
IL/RESEARCH 2
Further, the district court did not err when it denied Blakely’s motion for a
preliminary injunction compelling his transport to an outside practitioner. See
Earth Island Inst., 351 F.3d at 1298.
Blakely’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
IL/RESEARCH 3