Cesar R. Rodriguez v. CATE, Director;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CESAR R. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATE, Director; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15520
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01769-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Cesar R. Rodriguez 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 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15520 2
§ 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 Rodriguez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
consciously disregarded a risk to his health in pursuing a conservative treatment
plan for his hernia before ordering an ultrasound and authorizing hernia repair
surgery. See id. at 1058 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they
know of and disregard an excessive risk of serious harm to inmate’s health).
Rodriguez’s disagreement with defendants’ medical opinion is not sufficient to
constitute deliberate indifference. See id. (in a claim involving alternative courses
of treatment, inmate must show that the chosen course was medically unacceptable
and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
Rodriguez’s remaining contentions, including those regarding the alleged
impact of budget cuts on his medical care, are unpersuasive.
Issues not raised in Rodriguez’s opening brief are deemed waived. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --