Anthony Starkes v. Dr. Haile;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY STARKES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. HAILE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17568
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02275-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Starkes, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17568 2
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
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 claim because Starkes failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his broken ankle. See id.
at 1057 (explaining that prison officials must know of and disregard a substantial
risk of serious harm for their conduct to constitute deliberate indifference, and that
negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after granting summary
judgment on the federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Fichman v. Media
Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Having granted judgment on the
federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.”).
Starkes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --