Jimmie A. Smith v. J. FITTER, M.D. and H. CASSIM, M.D.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JIMMIE A. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. FITTER, M.D. and H. CASSIM, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56548
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-05712-CJC-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jimmie A. Smith 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
JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56548 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 Smith did
not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and
disregarded any excessive risks to him. 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 and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of
medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Wood v.
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (“mere malpractice, or even
gross negligence, does not suffice”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --