Carl v. Maass

60 F.3d 833 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carl V. DUMLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Manfred MAASS, Superintendent; Oregon State Prison; Margaret Collatt, Health Services Manager at OSP; Judicial Department of the State of Oregon; Richard D. Barber, Judge in Marion County, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-3600. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 26, 1995. * Decided June 30, 1995. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carl V. Dumler, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Maass in Dumler's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Dumler also appeals the district court's denial of his motions for recusal and for appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 & 1292(b), and affirm. 3 * Service of Defendants 4 Dumler appears to contend that the district…