Josh Donley v. Benton County Corrections;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSH DONLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BENTON COUNTY CORRECTIONS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35802
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05043-CI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Josh Donley 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.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
FILED
JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35802 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Donley
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
consciously disregarded Donley’s serious medical needs related to the treatment of
an infection in his left knee. See id. at 1057-58 (discussing objective and
subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim and explaining that inmate’s
difference of opinion with physician concerning the course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096
(9th Cir. 2006) (isolated instances of negligence do not constitute deliberate
indifference and delay in treatment is also insufficient absent proof that it resulted
in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain).
Donley’s arguments that the district court improperly granted summary
judgment after concluding that triable disputes existed and improperly resolved his
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are rejected.
We do not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief, including
Donley’s evidentiary objections to defendants’ statement of facts. See Graves v.
Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --