GEORGE TYRONE DUNLAP, Jr. v. NEVEN, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE TYRONE DUNLAP, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NEVEN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15593
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02394-RLH-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner George Tyrone Dunlap, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JAN 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15593 2
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dunlap’s claim
alleging deliberate indifference to his medical and dental needs because Dunlap
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Dunlap’s health. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish deliberate indifference based on a delay in
treatment, a prisoner must show that the delay resulted in further significant injury
or the wanton infliction of pain); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health and safety; a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the
course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dunlap’s claims
alleging failure to protect him from inmate assault because Dunlap failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded
an excessive risk to Dunlap’s safety. See id. at 1057.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dunlap’s claims
alleging retaliation because Dunlap failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants took any adverse action in retaliation for his filing of

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15593 3
grievances. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(explaining the elements of a retaliation claim under § 1983).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dunlap’s claim
alleging that defendants poisoned his food because Dunlap failed to provide any
evidence supporting that claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986) (a party may prevail at summary judgment by showing that there is an
absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case).
Dunlap’s contention that the district court erred in denying his discovery
request and defendants’ contention that this court should sanction Dunlap for filing
a frivolous appeal are unpersuasive.
Dunlap’s “Motion to Reverse Order of Summary Judgment” is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --