Jamel Walker v. Jason Roher

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAMEL WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JASON ROHER,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16807
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03034-WBS-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jamel Walker, 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16807 2
§ 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 Walker’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Walker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether Roher’s treatment of his hip injury constituted deliberate
indifference. See id. at 1058 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health, and a
difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
Walker’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --