Samuel D. Martin v. Damanjeet Chugh;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SAMUEL D. MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAMANJEET CHUGH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35728
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00060-RMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Samuel D. Martin, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his 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
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35728 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martin failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chugh’s failure to order an
x-ray “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in
conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058 (explaining
that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish
deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Martin
also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s denial
of his grievance amounted to deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057 (a prison
official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety).
Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --