Opinion
No. 13-16645
03-20-2015
KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, M.D.; W. THOMPSON, LVN, as CTC Specialty Clinic Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03145-EFB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
California state prisoner Kevin Bartholomew 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 Bartholomew failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Bartholomew's skin condition or shoulder pain. 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 a prisoner's health; negligence or medical malpractice is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) ("A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established."), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
We reject Bartholomew's contentions that the magistrate judge was biased and that defendants had not consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.