FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD L. GRAY, II, No. 11-16865
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00778-OWW-
GSA
v.
D. ROBINSON, MTA; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edward L. Gray, II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in connection with his treatment
*
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).
for valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 Gray failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to
respond adequately to his illness. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with
deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish
that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must
show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable
and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to continue
defendants’ summary judgment motions until Gray could conduct additional
discovery because Gray failed to identify the specific facts that additional
discovery would have revealed or how those facts would have been essential to
resist the summary judgment motions. See California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic
Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of
review and setting forth relevant factors).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16865