Summary
affirming grant of summary judgment for defendants and explaining "[a]t most, the evidence that [plaintiff] presented demonstrates that the failure of Drs. Macabuhay and Hegmann to immediately refer [plaintiff] to a liver specialist amounted to negligence."
Summary of this case from Hill v. Director of CorrectionsOpinion
No. 12-16522 D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00657-RCC
04-02-2014
JOEL M. HUGHES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DENNIS G. CHENAIL; et al., Defendants - Appellees, And JAMES WARREN BAIRD, MD, ADC Medical Program Manager; et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 14, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
--------
Former Arizona state prisoner Joel Hughes appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Drs. Macabuhay and Hegmann in Hughes' action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his Hepatitis B and C. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Hughes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Drs. Macabuhay and Hegmann knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Hughes' health and safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). At most, the evidence that Hughes presented demonstrates that the failure of Drs. Macabuhay and Hegmann to immediately refer Hughes to a liver specialist amounted to negligence. However, "[m]ere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights." Id. (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.