Maddox v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
David Maddox, 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against defendants Neubarth and Huang because Maddox failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their treatment of his leg problems constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1059-60 (concluding that a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against defendant Lewis because Maddox failed to present any evidence supporting his claim that Lewis violated his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 682-33 (9th Cir.1988) (explaining that a state official is liable under § 1983 only if his actions cause the deprivation of a constitutional right).