Michael Victory v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Victory appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under' 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and a determination that a prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Victory failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Victory’s serious medical needs by denying his requests for an egg crate mattress, a lower tier cell, an MRI, and a bone scan. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim); see also id. at 1059-60 (difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly dismissed Victory’s claims concerning defendants’…