David Rademaker v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID RADEMAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17223
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01659-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
David Rademaker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17223 2
Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rademaker’s
claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, because
Rademaker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety from slippery
shower floors. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“a prison
official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] . . . unless the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”).
Rademaker’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --