FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOB SAVAGE, No. 12-15931
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01346-LKK-
JFM
v.
SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bob Savage appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law
claims arising from being temporarily removed from a program under which meals
*
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).
were delivered to him and other inmates in their cells. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 on Savage’s
deliberate indifference claim because Savage failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a
serious risk of harm to his health when a prison doctor authorized Savage’s
temporary removal from the in-cell meal program. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs of deliberate
indifference claim); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-1060 (neither conduct rising to the
level of negligence nor inmate’s difference of opinion with physician is sufficient
to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Savage’s equal
protection claim because Savage failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
defendants intentionally treated him differently from other, similarly-situated
inmates, and whether any such difference in treatment was not rationally related to
valid penological interests. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (setting forth elements of equal protection claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Savage’s claims
2 12-15931
under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act because Savage failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
defendants knew that removing him from the in-cell meal program would likely
harm any federally protected right, and that they failed to act upon that likelihood.
See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting
forth test for intentional discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act),
Issues raised in Savage’s brief that are not supported by argument—such as
the partial dismissal of his remaining claims; the dismissal of his state law claims
because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and the
denials of his motions for discovery, a preliminary injunction, the appointment of
counsel, and other relief—are deemed abandoned. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7
F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
Savage’s remaining contentions regarding defendants’ alleged submission of
unsigned declarations and the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of his
request for a directed verdict are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15931