Danny Jay Romero v. Vargo;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DANNY JAY ROMERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VARGO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-36096
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-06083-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Danny Jay Romero, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-36096 2
U.S.C. § 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 Romero did
not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating his foot pain. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials
act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive
risk to a prisoner’s health; a difference of opinion about the best course of medical
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Romero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --