Nathaniel Morris v. Steven Macarthur

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATHANIEL MORRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN MACARTHUR,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-15425
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00718-BES-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Nathaniel Morris, a Nevada 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 in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
FILED
MAR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DS/Research 09-15425 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 because Morris failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately
indifferent to Morris’s alleged infection. See id. at 1057 (stating that a prison
official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div.,
662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A difference of opinion between a
prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give
rise to a § 1983 claim.”).
Morris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --