Risenhoover

Marvin Hollis v. Risenhoover

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 22, 202220-16489California650 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN G. HOLLIS, No. 20-16489

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00326-BLF

v.

MEMORANDUM*

RISENHOOVER, Nurse Practitioner; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Marvin G. Hollis 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, Wilk v. Neven, 956 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2020),

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and we affirm.

The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.