Elbert Thomas Martin v. Donald A. Ramberg, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELBERT THOMAS MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD A. RAMBERG, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56562
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00827-SJO-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elbert Thomas Martin, 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
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56562 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 Martin failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s treatment of
his back and leg pain constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058 (prison
officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an
excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the
appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --