Opinion
No. 12-16317 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-02715-RMW
06-26-2013
JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TABBAA MUMTAZ, Doctor; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Edwards Williams 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 Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs of deliberate indifference claim); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-1060 (neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983 does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining the reasons for not considering new arguments on appeal, i.e., that doing so would deprive the court of appeals "of a fully developed factual record" and "the benefit of the district court's prior analysis").
Williams's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.