Barry Jameson v. Perry ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY SIMON JAMESON, No. 13-16089
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PERRY, Dr.; B. REES, Dr.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Barry Simon Jameson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in 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. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jameson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendant
physicians were deliberately indifferent to the injuries and pain that Jameson
suffered following a prison riot. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)
(a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if “the official knows of an
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d 1058-60 (9th
Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and a mere difference in
opinion concerning the course of treatment is insufficient).
The district court’s decision to exclude a portion of the Merck Manual
concerning boxer’s fractures, although erroneous, was not prejudicial. See
Sea-Land Serv., Inc v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 813 (9th Cir. 2002)
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion and explaining that reversal is appropriate for
an evidentiary error at summary judgment only when the error is prejudicial).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16089