NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE WILHELM, No. 15-16925
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00001-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARON ROTMAN, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 14, 2017***
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steve Wilhelm 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 under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rotman
because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Rotman was deliberately indifferent by causing a delay in Wilhelm’s hernia
treatment. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate
indifference requires showing of harm “caused by” the alleged indifference);
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate
indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further
injury); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A defendant
must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical
need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”), overruled on other
grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Wilhelm’s request for entry of default judgment, set forth in his reply brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16925