Matthew Young v. Mark Nooth

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW ROBERT YOUNG, No. 11-35999
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01138-PK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of SRCI;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Matthew Robert Young appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Young’s claim
that defendants denied him access to the courts because Young failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions caused an actual
injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting forth actual
injury requirement).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Young’s
deliberate indifference claims because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a
serious risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs of deliberate indifference
claim); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60 (neither a difference of opinion concerning
the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the requirements for establishing
supervisory liability).
Young’s contentions concerning the magistrate judge’s allegedly improper
2 11-35999
rulings are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35999