From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walters v. Warden

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 25, 2011
444 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-15890.

Submitted July 12, 2011.

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

July 25, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:07-cv-04921-TEH.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Robert William Walters, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Walters failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants' treatment of his shoulder and back injuries constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (inmate must establish that prison officials "possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind" to implicate the Eighth Amendment); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (deliberate indifference requires "a purposeful act or failure to respond to pain or possible medical need").

Walters's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Walters v. Warden

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 25, 2011
444 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Walters v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT WILLIAM WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. EVANS, Warden; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 25, 2011

Citations

444 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2011)