NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES WAYNE MARIETTA, No. 20-15234
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-08064-MTL-
CDB
v.
LEANNE LoBUE, Nurse Practitioner; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Charles Wayne Marietta 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants LoBue
and Erno because Marietta failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent in the treatment of
Marietta’s renal stenosis or other serious health conditions. See id. at 1057-60
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,
or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a
prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show
that the delay caused significant harm); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
Summary judgment for defendant Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”) was
proper because Marietta failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether CCS caused Marietta to suffer constitutional injuries under any potentially
applicable standard. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76
(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish liability under
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Tsao v. Desert
Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under
§ 1983 only if the entity acted under color of state law and a constitutional
violation was caused by the entity’s official policy or custom); Starr, 652 F.3d at
1207-08.
2 20-15234
We reject as without merit Marietta’s contention that the district court erred
by ordering defendants to produce documents concerning the medical care
Marietta received after he filed the operative complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-15234