NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL NATHANIEL ALLEN, No. 18-16455
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00523-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TYLER, Nurse Practitioner; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Nathaniel Allen 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. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allen failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Allen’s back pain in ordering the removal of Allen’s
wheelchair. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if
he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
We treat Allen’s “First Amendment Brief for Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant[’s] Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Docket Entry No. 29) as his reply brief.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16455