FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, No. 12-16317
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:10-cv-02715-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TABBAA MUMTAZ, Doctor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Edwards Williams 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. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
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. 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 a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see
also Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983
does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Dream
Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the
reasons for not considering new arguments on appeal, i.e., that doing so would
deprive the court of appeals “of a fully developed factual record” and “the benefit
of the district court’s prior analysis”).
Williams’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16317