Elbert Lee Vaught, Iv v. B. Miranda;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 LEE VAUGHT, IV,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. MIRANDA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15810
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01108-MCE-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Elbert Lee Vaught, IV, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15810 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp.
Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vaught
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delay he
experienced in receiving physical therapy for his back injury led to further injury.
See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging delay
of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference must show delay led to further
injury). Moreover, Vaught failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants were involved in or had any control over the filling and
distribution of prescription medication in the prison and thus were responsible for
his failure to receive his prescribed pain medicine. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff must show personal involvement in alleged
violations).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --