Harry Williby v. Jeanne Woodford , 356 F. App'x 976 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 14 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HARRY J. WILLIBY,                                No. 08-17449
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:04-CV-02560-JAM-
    JFM
    v.
    JEANNE S. WOODFORD; et al.,                      MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 17, 2009 **
    Before:        ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Harry J. Williby, a former 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 his dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    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 on the Eighth
    Amendment claims because Williby did not raise a triable issue as to whether “the
    chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances,
    and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” 
    Id. at 1058
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
    supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal
    claims. See Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 
    289 F.3d 1162
    , 1169 (9th Cir.
    2002) (“Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the
    federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims.”).
    Williby’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    /Research                                   2                                      08-17449
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17449

Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 976

Filed Date: 12/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023