Steven D. Percelle v. Alan Rosenthal, Dr.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVEN D. PERCELLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALAN ROSENTHAL, DR.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17170
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01998-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven D. Percelle 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 pursuant to 28
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17170 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 Percelle did
not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to him while treating his neurological condition. 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).
Percelle’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --