Ernest Lee Dean v. Dravis;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST LEE DEAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DRAVIS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUION; OREGON DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
No. 21-35447
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02050-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 18, 2023***
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-35447
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Ernest Lee Dean appeals pro se from the district
court’s 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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Toguchi Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Dr. Gulick
because Dean failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr.
Gulick was deliberately indifferent to Dean’s chronic degenerative disc disease.
See Toguchi, 391 F.3d 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 or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Dean’s claims against the Oregon
Department of Corrections and Snake River Correctional Institution as barred
under the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which the State or
one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the
Eleventh Amendment.”); Brown v. Oregon Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 988 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-35447
Cir. 2014) (dismissing claims against the Oregon Department of Corrections under
the Eleventh Amendment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --