Ramen
James Davis v. Ramen
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
James L. Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the decision to deny a request to conduct additional discovery, Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc., 840 F.2d 1394, 1399-1400 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent when they discontinued Davis’s HIV medication when he refused to take it as prescribed, and altered Davis’s diabetes treatment. See Toguchi 391 F.3d at 1059-60 (difference of medical opinion does not support deliberate indifference claim); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner and medical staff does not support deliberate indifference claim).