Rangel

MEMORANDUM **

Rogelio Hamilton Rangel appeals from the district court’s decisions granting summary judgment to Defendant Dr. Deepak Mehta, dismissing Rangel’s claims against Dr. Nabil Athanassious and other defendants, and denying Rangel’s request for pro bono counsel.

We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Dr. Mehta. Rangel has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mehta was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006). Rangel does not dispute Dr. Mehta’s assertion that as a general practitioner, he could not provide surgery or cancer treatment. Therefore, his claim fails. The district court’s Rand notice gave Rangel “fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule” and was not defective because it was issued in English shortly after Rangel filed his complaint. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir.1998).

We reverse the district court’s effective dismissal of Rangel’s claims against Dr. Athanassious. Rangel stated in his complaint that he had been…