FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID RADEMAKER, No. 11-17223

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01659-LHK

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012 **

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

David Rademaker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rademaker’s

claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, because

Rademaker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety from slippery

shower floors. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“a prison

official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] . . . unless the official

knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”).

Rademaker’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

2 11-17223