Vance Edward Johnson v. J. Fortune

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. FORTUNE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15965
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01613-LJO-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Vance Edward Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15965
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent
to his chronic pain. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004)
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,
or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
We reject as without merit Johnson’s contention that the district court
improperly failed to consider his objections to the findings and recommendations.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --