Steve W. Chennault v. MORRIS, Registered Dietician

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE W. CHENNAULT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MORRIS, Registered Dietician,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55878
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00854-BTM-KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Steve W. Chennault appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55878
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Chennault
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Appellee was
deliberately indifferent in providing care following Chennault’s tonsillectomy or
otherwise personally participated in the deprivation of his constitutional rights.
See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); see also Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983
only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is
a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --