NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERRY WILLIAMS, No. 24-3880 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CLEMENT OGBUEHI, Physician Assistant at Kern Valley State Prison; WAYNE ULIT, Medical Doctor at Kern Valley State Prison; L. MOORE, Correctional Lieutenant at Kern Valley State Prison; R. RIVERA, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison; R. AARON, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Former California state prisoner Gerry Williams 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 ruling on cross-motions

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 defendants

because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants were deliberately indifferent to Williams’s claims of hepatitis C and

liver cirrhosis. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016)

(stating that a difference of opinion between a physician and a prisoner concerning

appropriate medical care does not amount to deliberate indifference); Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that prison officials act

with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to

the prisoner’s health); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (an

assertion that is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury

could believe it” will not create a genuine dispute of material fact at summary

judgment).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3880