Robert Jimenez v. Dr. Rowe

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 26 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT C. JIMENEZ, No. 11-17037 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02328-SI v. MEMORANDUM * DR. ROWE; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 17, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Robert C. Jimenez 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 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). § 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 because Jimenez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in determining whether to continue his Hepatitis C treatment. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation). We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17037