22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f3,MEMORANDUM Michael Earl Waters appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He contends that the district court erred in concluding that defendants Brotman Medical Center (“Brot-man”) and Dr. Narimatsu were not “state actors.” To state a § 1983 claim, Waters must allege not only that Brotman and Narimat-su were state actors, see George v. Pacific-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam), but also that they acted with “deliberate indifference” in their failure to provide him adequate medical treatment, see Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2010). We need not reach the state action issue because Waters has not adequately alleged deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because dismissal of the § 1983 claim was proper, we do not disturb the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Waters’s state law claims against Brotman and Narimat-su. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T525,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Earl Waters appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He contends that the district court erred in concluding that defendants Brotman Medical Center (“Brot-man”) and Dr. Narimatsu were not “state actors.”

To state a § 1983 claim, Waters must allege not only that Brotman and Narimat-su were state actors, see George v. Pacific-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam), but also that they acted with “deliberate indifference” in their failure to provide him adequate medical treatment, see Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2010). We need not reach the state action issue because Waters has not adequately alleged deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Because dismissal of the § 1983 claim was proper, we do not disturb the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Waters’s state law claims against Brotman and Narimat-su. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3).

AFFIRMED.

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