Opinion
No. 11-15520 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01769-MHP
07-13-2012
CESAR R. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CATE, Director; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Cesar R. Rodriguez 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. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded a risk to his health in pursuing a conservative treatment plan for his hernia before ordering an ultrasound and authorizing hernia repair surgery. See id. at 1058 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk of serious harm to inmate's health). Rodriguez's disagreement with defendants' medical opinion is not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference. See id. (in a claim involving alternative courses of treatment, inmate must show that the chosen course was medically unacceptable and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner's health).
Rodriguez's remaining contentions, including those regarding the alleged impact of budget cuts on his medical care, are unpersuasive.
Issues not raised in Rodriguez's opening brief are deemed waived. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.