Kevin Bartholomew v. ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, M.D.; W. THOMPSON, LVN, as CTC Specialty Clinic Nurse

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, M.D.;
W. THOMPSON, LVN, as CTC Specialty
Clinic Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16645
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03145-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 10, 2015***
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin Bartholomew appeals pro se from the district
FILED
MAR 20 2015
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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because
Bartholomew failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Bartholomew’s skin condition or
shoulder pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health;
negligence or medical malpractice is insufficient to establish an Eighth
Amendment violation); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.
1992) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s
pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be
established.”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d
1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
We reject Bartholomew’s contentions that the magistrate judge was biased
and that defendants had not consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
13-16645 2

-- 2 of 2 --