Joseph Tidwell v. Paul Gallagher

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2018
• Docket: 17-56074
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH ALLEN TIDWELL, No. 17-56074

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05072-AG-E

v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL GALLAGHER, M.D., in his individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Joseph Allen Tidwell, 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 to his serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Tidwell

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Gallagher caused the

delay in providing medical records to an outside specialist. See Leer v. Murphy,

844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-56074