Joseph Allen Tidwell v. PAUL GALLAGHER, M.D., in his individual capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH ALLEN TIDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAUL GALLAGHER, M.D., in his
individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56074
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05072-AG-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Allen Tidwell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his 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
* 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
MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56074
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Tidwell
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Gallagher caused the
delay in providing medical records to an outside specialist. See Leer v. Murphy,
844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional
right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates
in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally
required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --