Robert Sanford v. Levin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-56160 · 2013-02-19 · Unpublished

Robert Lionel SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVIN, Chief Medical Officer (CSP); Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Kim M. Wardlaw

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2013

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LIONEL SANFORD, No. 10-56160 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01049-H-PCL v. MEMORANDUM * LEVIN, Chief Medical Officer (CSP); et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 11, 2013 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Robert Lionel Sanford appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to 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 to defendants because Sanford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Sanford’s need for post-operative care, including in addressing a nasal bleed, after he had surgery for chronic sinus problems. See id.

at 1057-58 (neither negligence nor difference of opinion between doctor and prisoner concerning the appropriate course of treatment amounts to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-56160