Mark Anthony Clearman v. Ms. Ellen Fernando;

10-55522Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit06.03.2012

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARK ANTHONY CLEARMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. ELLEN FERNANDO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55522
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05633-AG-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mark Anthony Clearman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55522 2
alleging deliberate indifference to serious 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clearman did
not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs regarding the appropriate
diagnosis and treatment of his shoulder injury. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d
330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to
deliberate indifference, a prisoner “must show that the course of treatment the
doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that
they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the
prisoner’s] health” (citations omitted)).
Clearman’s remaining contentions, including that the district court failed to
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to him, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.