Harry J. Williby v. Jeanne S. Woodford;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARRY J. WILLIBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17449
D.C. No. 2:04-CV-02560-JAM-
JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Harry J. Williby, a former 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 dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

/Research 08-17449 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 the Eighth
Amendment claims because Williby did not raise a triable issue as to whether “the
chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances,
and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at
1058 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal
claims. See Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir.
2002) (“Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the
federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims.”).
Williby’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --