Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Leroy P. Baca appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Apache County Sheriff's Department and prison doctor in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Baca contends that he was denied proper medical treatment while he was incarcerated, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We affirm.

Baca, an inmate at the Apache County Jail in Arizona, was injured on December 21, 1987 when he was knocked against a table by other inmates. The next day he requested medical attention and was treated on December 23, 1987 by defendant Dr. Wayne Hamblin. Dr. Hamblin prescribed medication. Baca complained of pain again on December 29, 1987 and was again taken to Dr. Hamblin on December 30, 1987. X-rays were taken and the doctor diagnosed Baca as having bruised or sprained ribs and prescribed that Baca continue with pain medication.

Baca again requested medical treatment on January 18, 1988 and was referred to another doctor on January 26, 1988. Baca was then diagnosed as having a bladder infection. He continued to receive medical treatment until June 22, 1988, when he received an operation. Baca filed his complaint alleging that the sheriff's department and Dr. Hamblin were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for the three months prior to the operation. The district court granted summary judgment. Baca timely appeals.

Baca contends that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff's Department because (1) they refused him medical treatment "on many occasions over several months," (2) they caused his operation to be delayed for three months, (3) they ridiculed and threatened him for seeking treatment, and (4) they dispensed medication illegally and in direct interference with his doctor's prescribed treatment.

Baca's pleadings have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Baca has provided no evidence in the district court from which it could be concluded that the prison officials denied, delayed or intentionally interfered with medical treatment. See Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). Also, with respect to Baca's latter two claims, his vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to withstand the motion for summary judgment. Cf. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed those claims.

Baca also contends that Dr. Hamblin was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Even assuming Dr. Hamblin was performing as a state actor, and even assuming Baca's factual allegations are true, the allegations regarding Dr. Hamblin's treatment state, at most, a claim for malpractice. Such allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Shields v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1971). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.