John Kelly Reynolds v. State of Washington Department of Corrections;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN KELLY REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35776
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05126-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: BERZON and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE,** District Judge.
John Reynolds, a Washington state prisoner, contends that medical personnel
of the Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) are liable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state tort law for failing to diagnose and treat his chronic back pain. The
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction over Reynolds’
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. The district court correctly concluded that Reynolds had failed to proffer
evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether DOC personnel were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Reynolds was regularly seen by medical personnel, received
various tests (including an x-ray diagnosed as normal), was prescribed pain
medication, and was counseled to “continue with conservative management” of his
condition after his chart was reviewed by a physician. Reynolds argues that he
should instead have been referred to a neurologist and received an MRI, but provided
no evidence that such a course of action could have given rise to a more favorable
result. See Mayfield v. Craven, 433 F.2d 873, 874 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam)
(holding that “a difference of opinion between a prisoner patient and prison medical
authorities as to what treatment is proper and necessary does not give rise to” a
§ 1983 claim).
2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Reynolds’
medical negligence claim, because Reynolds failed to proffer any supporting expert
testimony. See Guile v. Ballard Cmty. Hosp., 851 P.2d 689, 693 (Wash. Ct. App.
1993) (“In a medical malpractice case, expert testimony is generally required to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
establish the standard of care and to prove causation.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --