Dennis Michael Gieck v. Martin Earle Levin, M.d.; An Minh Nguyen, M.d.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTIN EARLE LEVIN, M.D.; AN
MINH NGUYEN, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55168
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01974-H-RBB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Michael Gieck, 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
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55168 2
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 Gieck failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating his cervical condition and skin infections. See
id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety, and
negligence or a difference of medical opinion are insufficient to establish
deliberate indifference).
Gieck’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We grant Gieck’s request, filed August 5, 2010, for the court to refer to the
Reply Brief from his previous appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --