Linschoten

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Michael J. Linschoten appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

Because Linschoten filed his complaint more than two years after the alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Counts I, III, and IV. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4)(e) (1999). Because prison doctors delivered adequate medical treatment for Linschoten’s lung disease and did not act with deliberate indifference in diagnosing Linschoten’s Hepatitis C disease, Linschoten provided no evidence to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Because Linschoten provided no evidence to establish that prison officials took his private…