Brandon Ruiz v. Dr. Akintola

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRANDON RUIZ, No. 10-16516 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00318-JAM- GGH v. DR. AKINTOLA; NASEER, MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2011 ** Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Brandon Ruiz 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 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 because Ruiz did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). Ruiz’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-16516