Kevin Anderson v. Washington State Department of Corrections;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35185
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05110-RMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Kevin Anderson 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 needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
* 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 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35185
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his eye condition. 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 the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical
opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Anderson leave to
amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --