William Cameron v. Elizabeth Rantz

MEMORANDUM

Montana state prisoner William Cameron 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Cameron failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other serious medical needs. See Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703 , 711 (9th Cir.2010) (a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075 , 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”).

Cameron’s appeal of the denial of his motions for preliminary injunctive relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d…