Jerry Bishop v. George Kaiser

981 F.2d 1257 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jerry BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George KAISER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15661. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 23, 1992. * Decided Dec. 3, 1992. Before SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jerry Bishop, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court determined that Bishop failed to show that the defendants personally participated in violating his eighth amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jones v. Union Pacific R.R., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm. 3 Bishop contends that the defendants violated his eighth amendment rights by allowing a dentist who was not licensed in the state of Nevada to pull his tooth. This contention lacks merit. 4 A grant of summary judgment should be…