Nathan Turner v. John Rohrer , 585 F. App'x 371 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 8 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN KEVIN TURNER, No. 13-16558
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00632-TLN-
DAD
v.
JOHN ROHRER, M.D., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Nathan Kevin Turner 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Turner failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant consciously
disregarded a serious risk to Turner’s health related to his knee and shoulder
injuries by failing to classify his medical needs as “urgent” or not pursuing a more
aggressive course of treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847
(1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if “he knows that inmates
face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (prisoner’s difference
of opinion with physician regarding course of treatment is not sufficient; rather, to
show deliberate indifference, prisoner must establish that the chosen course of
treatment “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262,
266 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit
contradicting his prior deposition testimony.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16558