Matthew Ritter v. Matt Alexander

MEMORANDUM

Former Nevada state prisoner Matthew Ritter appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to his pre-trial detention. 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 as to Ritter’s deliberate indifference claims because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded his serious medical needs, intentionally delayed his access to treatment, or knowingly failed to protect him from a serious risk of harm to his health or safety. See id. at 1057-58 (listing standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (standard for deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm to health or safety); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (isolated neglect does not constitute deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary…