From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arias v. Johal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 30, 2019
No. 18-17101 (9th Cir. May. 30, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-17101

05-30-2019

MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. JOHAL, Medical Doctor at North Kern State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00764-LJO-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Mario Martinez Arias, 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 a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arias failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Johal was deliberately indifferent to Arias's need for post-operative treatment of his right foot. See id. at 1057-60 (difference of opinion concerning course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We reject as meritless Arias's contention that the district court erred by not considering his statements as qualified medical opinions.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Arias v. Johal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 30, 2019
No. 18-17101 (9th Cir. May. 30, 2019)
Case details for

Arias v. Johal

Case Details

Full title:MARIO MARTINEZ ARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. JOHAL, Medical Doctor at…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 30, 2019

Citations

No. 18-17101 (9th Cir. May. 30, 2019)