Hollis v. Barrie

Ninth Circuit

Hollis v. Barrie

321 F. App'x 677

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2009

DocketNo. 07-17165

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 321 F. App'x 677 (Hollis v. Barrie) 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

Hollis v. Barrie, 321 F. App'x 677 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Marvin G. Hollis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot condition by failing to provide orthotic shoe inserts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). We review for abuse of discretion a decision not to permit further discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 266 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hollis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants intentionally failed to provide the orthotics. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (holding that negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

Hollis’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Marvin G. Hollis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot condition by failing to provide orthotic shoe inserts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). We review for abuse of discretion a decision not to permit further discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Nicholas v. Wallenstein, 266 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hollis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants intentionally failed to provide the orthotics. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (holding that negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

Hollis’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollis-v-barrie-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack