Christopher Lee Outley v. Glenn N. James, 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).
IL/Research
08-17126
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER LEE OUTLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLENN N. JAMES, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17126
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02271-MCE-
CMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Lee Outley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment for defendants and from the order denying his
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

IL/Research
08-17126 2
motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C.
§1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order
granting summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and for abuse of discretion and proper application of legal principles an
order denying a preliminary injunction, Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351
F.3d 1291, 1298 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
evidence of negligence and of a difference of medical opinion is insufficient to
show deliberate indifference. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th
Cir. 1992) (explaining that negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights),
rev’d on other grounds, WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)
(en banc); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a
difference of opinion regarding the best course of medical treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
“[T]he district court employed the proper preliminary injunction standard
and . . . correctly apprehended the underlying legal issues in the case,” and

-- 2 of 3 --

IL/Research
08-17126 3
therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Outley’s motion for a preliminary
injunction. Earth Island Inst., 351 F.3d at 1298.
Outley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --