HERMAN TIEMENS, Jr. v. R. L. Andreasen; Nadim K. Khoury

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HERMAN TIEMENS, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. L. ANDREASEN; NADIM K.
KHOURY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15941
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00052-FCD-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Herman Tiemens, Jr., 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
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15941 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 Tiemens
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to his health in denying his requests for
ice chips and pudding snacks to be served in conjunction with his heart medication.
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --