CURTIS Le’BARRON GRAY v. WAYNE ULIT, Medical Physician at CSP Corcoran

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CURTIS Le’BARRON GRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WAYNE ULIT, Medical Physician at CSP
Corcoran; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16119
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00357-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Curtis Le’Barron Gray appeals pro se from the
district court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16119 2
action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim against the appeals
coordinator because Gray did not allege facts showing that the coordinator was
deliberately indifferent to Gray’s medical needs when determining that emergency
processing of his grievance was not warranted. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d 1058-59 (a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety; negligence is
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ulit
because Gray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the
delay in treatment of his retinal tear was harmful or led to further injury. See
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay of medical treatment
does not constitute deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --