FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN SEVRENCE, No. 11-15234
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00518-LRH-
VPC
v.
N.D.O.C.; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Edwin Sevrence appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir.
1989), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sevrence’s
deliberate indifference claims because Sevrence adduced no evidence creating a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether appellees were deliberately
indifferent to Sevrence’s medical condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (prisoner’s disagreement with doctors’ prescribed course of
treatment will not establish deliberate indifference in the absence of evidence that
treatment was medically unreasonable under the circumstances).
Sevrence’s “motion to include new papers” is denied, and appellees’ motion
to strike the portions of Sevrence’s reply brief that include exhibits not contained
in the district court record is granted. See Tonry v. Sec. Experts, Inc., 20 F.3d 967,
974 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[It is a] basic tenet of appellate jurisprudence . . . that parties
may not unilaterally supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed
by the court below.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15234