Sanderson
Sanderson v. Friedman
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Daniel Allen Sanderson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs and denied him due process when they prescribed medication for tuberculosis without his written consent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and dismissal, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We review the district court’s discovery ruling for an abuse of discretion. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir.1999). Because the district court did not expressly rule on Sanderson’s request for appointment of a medical expert, we review his motion de novo. Cf. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
We conclude that Sanderson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Sanderson’s medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).