Opinion
No. 18-35185
10-26-2018
KEVIN ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05110-RMP MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Washington state prisoner Kevin Anderson 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 Anderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his eye condition. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Anderson leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.