William D. Smith v. Elizabeth Suiter;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM D. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH SUITER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35707
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05093-CI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner William D. Smith appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent 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,
FILED
JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent by failing to provide him with medical tennis shoes. See id.
at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mistakes, negligence,
or malpractice by medical professionals are not sufficient to constitute deliberate
indifference, nor is a difference of medical opinion or an inmate’s difference of
opinion with the physician regarding the appropriate course of treatment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d
1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and stating that a
district court may deny a motion for leave to amend if permitting the amendment
would unduly delay the litigation or prejudice the opposing party).
We reject Smith’s contentions that the magistrate judge was biased against
him, his medical records were tampered with, defendants fabricated evidence, and
his objections to the report and recommendation should have been considered
timely.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35707

-- 2 of 2 --