Edward David v. Eloy Ituarte

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
NOV 2 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD DAVID, No. 19-17351
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00540-RCJ-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELOY ITUARTE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Edward David appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical
care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122
(9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because David failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant’s conduct in
the course of treating David’s left hand pain was objectively unreasonable. See id.
at 1124-25 (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth
Amendment inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees).
We reject as unsupported by the record David’s contentions that the district
court was biased against him or failed “to state a legal reason” for granting
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-17351