Thomas Bartholomew Layden Iv v. MICHAEL HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS BARTHOLOMEW LAYDEN
IV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor
at Meadows Unit; SUBODH SHROFF,
Doctor at Meadows Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15896
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02470-DJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Thomas Bartholomew Layden IV 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
* 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).
FILED
JUL 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15896
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 Layden
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in managing Layden’s pain. See id. at 1058-60 (a prison
official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --