Durrell v. Tilman

Ninth Circuit

Durrell v. Tilman

46 F. App'x 471

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketNo. 01-36003; D.C. No. CV-00-00852-OMP

StatusPublished

This text of 46 F. App'x 471 (Durrell v. Tilman) 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

Durrell v. Tilman, 46 F. App'x 471 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Paul Durrell, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to administer proper care after subjecting him to pepper spray. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants because Durrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ conduct constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Durrell’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Paul Durrell, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to administer proper care after subjecting him to pepper spray. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants because Durrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ conduct constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Durrell’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F. App'x 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durrell-v-tilman-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack