Candler
Candler v. Evans
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Keith W. Candler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs and interfered with his access to courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004) (summary judgment); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Candler’s deliberate indifference claim because Candler failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (affirming summary judgment where there was no evidence that the defendant was subjectively aware that her actions created a substantial risk of serious harm); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989) (explaining that a difference of medical opinion concerning treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).