Jesse Mann v. C. Lee , 456 F. App'x 690 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE MANN, No. 10-16059
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00781-MMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
C. LEE, Health Care Manager; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Mann, a 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 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), and
*
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).
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mann failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his back condition. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official
acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety; negligence and a mere difference
in medical opinion are insufficient); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9th
Cir. 1992) (no deliberate indifference where plaintiff failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether prison doctor defendants were responsible for
delays in treatment and surgery), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc.
v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
We do not consider Mann’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal.
See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16059