David Lancaster v. Aung , 530 F. App'x 622 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 20 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID GENE LANCASTER,                            No. 12-16109
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03230-MMC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    AUNG, Dr.; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 18, 2013 **
    Before:        TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner David Gene Lancaster 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
    *
    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).
    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 because Lancaster
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
    deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his Valley Fever-related meningitis.
    See 
    id. at 1058
     (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know
    of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion
    concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
    indifference).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lancaster’s motion
    to compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 
    296 F.3d 732
    , 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to
    deny discovery).
    Lancaster’s argument regarding defendants’ failure to produce documents in
    response to his discovery requests is unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    12-16109
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-16109

Citation Numbers: 530 F. App'x 622

Judges: Hurwitz, Smith, Tallman

Filed Date: 6/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023