The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-15821•Henry Manson, Iii v. David G. Smith, M.d.; Avindra Brar, M.d.
11-15821Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 20, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HENRY MANSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID G. SMITH, M.D.; AVINDRA
BRAR, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15821
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00437-OWW-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Henry Manson, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison medical staff were
deliberately indifferent to his left shoulder injuries. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-15821 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 for defendants Brar
and Smith because Manson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Manson’s
health and safety, and the undisputed evidence shows that these defendants
provided Manson treatment that they believed was appropriate based on their
diagnoses. See id. at 1057-58 (explaining that a prison official is deliberately
indifferent only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s
health and safety, mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition
does not constitute deliberate indifference, and where there is a difference of
medical opinion, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment was
both medically unacceptable under the circumstance and chosen in disregard of an
excessive risk to his health).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.