Danny Romero v. Vargo

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Danny Romero v. Vargo, 471 F. App'x 584 (9th Cir. 2012)

Danny Romero v. Vargo

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 *585 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.

**

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

Reference

Full Case Name
Danny Jay ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VARGO; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Status
Unpublished