Keith Sekerke v. Jason Silva

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-57011 · 2012-04-26 · Unpublished

Keith Wayne SEKERKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason SILVA, Doctor, Defendant-Appellee

Area: other
Panel: Edward Leavy (author), Richard A. Paez, Carlos T. Bea

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, No. 10-57011 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00360-JAH- JMA v. JASON SILVA, Doctor, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Keith Wayne Sekerke, a California 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sekerke’s evidence, including his verified complaint, failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether defendant Silva acted with deliberate indifference in treating his infection and headaches. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (a difference of opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation and a “showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation”).

Sekerke’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-57011