Brandon Ruiz v. Dr. Akintola; Naseer

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDON RUIZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. AKINTOLA; NASEER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16516
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00318-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Brandon Ruiz appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16516 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ruiz did not
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official
acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to an inmate’s health or safety, and a difference of opinion about the best
course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Ruiz’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --