Brad Patrick Donohue v. Vargo;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRAD PATRICK DONOHUE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VARGO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35784
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00788-MC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Former Oregon state prisoner Brad Patrick Donohue 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
* 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 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35784
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Donohue
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted in
conscious disregard to Donohue’s shoulder injuries or that any delay in Donohue’s
treatment resulted in significant injury. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference);
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference claim
based on delay of medical treatment must show that the delay led to significant
injury).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --