Jerome Bordelon v. Michael Mindoro, M.d.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME BORDELON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MINDORO, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-15895
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05724-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jerome Bordelon 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
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15895
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Mindoro because Bordelon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Mindoro was deliberately indifferent to Bordelon’s heart issues. 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --