Robert C. Jimenez v. Dr. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT C. JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. ROWE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17037
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02328-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert C. Jimenez 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
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17037 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 because Jimenez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in determining whether to continue his Hepatitis C
treatment. 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); Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d
703, 711 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no
constitutional violation).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --