Byron Eugene Johnson v. R. Cox, M.d.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BYRON EUGENE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. COX, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17149
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02856-WBS-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Byron Eugene Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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.
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17149 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his knee and leg problems. See id. at 1057-58 (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 and a mere
difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of
personal participation by the defendant.”).
Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --