Opinion
No. 10-36096 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-06083-MO
03-06-2012
DANNY JAY ROMERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VARGO; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Danny Jay Romero, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Romero did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his foot pain. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to a prisoner's health; a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Romero's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.