Dushan Stephan Nickolich, Ii v. Richard Rowe

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DUSHAN STEPHAN NICKOLICH, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD ROWE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-17623
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02508-SMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
Rowe was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have
FILED
JAN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17623 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nickolich’s
Eighth Amendment claim because Nickolich failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Rowe’s failure to diagnose diabetes constituted
deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate
indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s
health and safety; a difference of medical opinion about the best course of medical
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Nickolich’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --