From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Love v. Mekemson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 209 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-16506.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

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

Filed October 6, 2010.

Jonathan Love, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01731-LKKCMK.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jonathan Love, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Love's deliberate indifference claims because the allegations set forth in his amended complaint and the attachments thereto state, at most, a claim for negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) ("A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment."). Moreover, a difference in opinion between Love and the prison physicians about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1058.

Love's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Love v. Mekemson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 209 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Love v. Mekemson

Case Details

Full title:Jonathan LOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MEKEMSON; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 6, 2010

Citations

399 F. App'x 209 (9th Cir. 2010)