Clarence Davis v. CAROL BRADSHAW, Dentist

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROL BRADSHAW, Dentist,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-56345
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01159-CBM-
RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Davis, 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.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
FILED
FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately
indifferent in treating his decayed tooth. See id. at 1057 (discussing the standard
for deliberate indifference and explaining that mere negligence does not give rise
to an Eighth Amendment violation).
AFFIRMED.
12-56345 2

-- 2 of 2 --