Jonathan Love v. Robert Mekemson;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JONATHAN LOVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT MEKEMSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16506
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01731-LKK-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Love, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16506 2
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Love’s deliberate indifference claims
because the allegations set forth in his amended complaint and the attachments
thereto state, at most, a claim for negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is
insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment.”). Moreover, a difference in opinion between Love and the prison
physicians about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an
Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1058.
Love’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --