Hightower

Hightower v. Schwarzenegger

Good Law
308 F. App'x 220
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 15, 2009No. 07-16522California319 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas A. Hightower, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and order dismissing claims against certain named de *221 fendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989), and dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hightower’s deliberate indifference claims because there was no genuine issue as to whether the medical treatment Hightower received constituted deliberate indifference. See Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242 (instructing that neither a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment, nor a mere delay in care, is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hightower’s retaliation claims because he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.