NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FLOYD DEWAINE SCOTT, No. 18-55593

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01152-JVS-KK v.

MEMORANDUM* I. JIMENEZ, Licensed Vocational Nurse, in individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Floyd Dewaine Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Scott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that the delay caused significant harm); see also Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[S]tate departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation.”).

We treat Scott’s objections to the answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 26) as a motion to strike, and deny the motion.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55593