Thibodeaux
Thibodeaux v. Belleque
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Louis James Thibodeaux, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against him and acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Thibodeaux’s deliberate indifference claims because he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatments and recommendations by prison doctors were medically unacceptable. See id. at 242 (holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). Further, the district court is not required to state findings of fact or conclusions of law when deciding summary judgment motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(3); Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. NNR Aircargo Serv. (USA), Inc., 201 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir.2000).