Bilunka v. Marino

Full title: George A. BILUNKA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MARINO; Eric…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 22, 2001

4 F. App'x 467 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2001) George A. BILUNKA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MARINO; Eric Stokmanis; Correctional Medical Services; Kathy Jensen; Dagmar Mekinley; Robert Hendrix; Bill Domat; Theryn Waggner; Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-15841. D.C. No. CV-98-00242-ECR(PHA). United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 22, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001. ¹

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Inmate brought § 1983 action, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., J., granted summary judgment to defendants. Inmate filed pro se appeal. The Court of Appeals held that difference in opinion between inmate and physician regarding treatment did not amount to deliberate indifference to inmate's serious medical needs.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

George A. Bilunka Jr., a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants Marino and Stokmanis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo grants of summary judgment, see Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 952, 120 S.Ct. 375, 145 L.Ed.2d 293 (1999), and affirm.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant Marino because a difference in opinion between inmate and physician regarding treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant Stokmanis because Bilunka did not suffer harm from the delay in treatment. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Tech. Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Bilunka's remaining contentions regarding his Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, his Reply to Opposition for Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, and

Page 468.

his motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) lack merit.

AFFIRMED.