Country Joe Stevens v. David A. Mar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COUNTRY JOE STEVENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID A. MAR,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16834
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00010-RCJ-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Country Joe Stevens 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
JUL 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stevens
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Mar
provided treatment that was medically unacceptable and was in conscious
disregard to an excessive risk to Stevens’s health. See id. at 1058 (prison officials
are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk of
serious harm to an inmate’s health, and a prisoner’s disagreement with medical
opinion is not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan,
296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a prisoner alleges that delay of medical
treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he or she must show that the delay led to
further injury).
We do not consider issues raised by Stevens in his opening brief that are not
supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.
13-16834 2

-- 2 of 2 --