FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES L. DAVIS, No. 11-17414
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-
SMS
v.
RAMEN, Correctional Doctor; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
James L. Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and for an abuse of discretion the
decision to deny a request to conduct additional discovery, Barona Grp. of the
Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc., 840
F.2d 1394, 1399-1400 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent when they discontinued Davis’s HIV medication when he
refused to take it as prescribed, and altered Davis’s diabetes treatment. See
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60 (difference of medical opinion does not support
deliberate indifference claim); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.
1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner and medical staff does not support
deliberate indifference claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reopen the
discovery process because Davis was afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery
and did not “explain how additional discovery would have affected the disposition
of the case . . . .” Barona Grp., 840 F.2d at 1400.
We do not address Davis’s arguments that defendants did not file their
summary judgment motion by the court’s deadline and that the magistrate judge
2 11-17414
and defendants’ counsel lacked valid oaths of office. See Bolker v. Comm’r, 760
F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985) (“As a general rule, we will not consider an issue
raised for the first time on appeal.”). In any event, such arguments are without
merit.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17414