Chatmon v. Freeman

Ninth Circuit

Chatmon v. Freeman

177 F. App'x 624

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2006

DocketNo. 05-15327

StatusPublished

This text of 177 F. App'x 624 (Chatmon v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chatmon v. Freeman, 177 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Joe N. Chatmon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs stemming from a foot injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Chatmon failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered from a serious medical condition. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Chatmon’s motion for injunctive relief is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Joe N. Chatmon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs stemming from a foot injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Chatmon failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered from a serious medical condition. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Chatmon’s motion for injunctive relief is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatmon-v-freeman-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack