FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. 08-16604
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01499-LKK-
CMK
v.
M. PENNER; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nehemiah Robinson, a California 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 is case suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under
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 to defendants because
Robinson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatment
for his arthritis “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was
chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058
(explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law,
to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
Robinson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
KV/Research 2 08-16604