UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
January 25, 2011
CLARENCE DAVIS, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT,
CARMAN SUTLEY, DENTIST, DEFENDANT - APPELLEE.
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01415-CBMRNB Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Submitted January 10, 2011*fn2
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in connection with his dental treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his dental pain. See id. at 1057. A difference in medical opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1059-60; see also Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) ("A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a [section] 1983 claim."). Moreover, a "showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment." Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060.
Davis's remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED.