Bernard Rhodes, Plaintiff-appellant, v. M. Moscovich, Dr.; Gilbert Sainz, Defendants-appellees, 125 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 125 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Sept. 22, 1997. **Decided Sept. 26, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CV-95-00029-JFM; Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, BRUNETTI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Bernard Rhodes, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison physicians in Rhodes' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference of his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Rhodes contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants Moscovich and Sainz. "The party opposing the summary judgment may not rest on conclusory allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Rhodes offered no evidence regarding the actions of defendants Moscovich and Sainz, and in fact mentions both defendants only fleetingly in his unverified complaint.1  Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815.

AFFIRMED.2 

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, Rhodes's request for oral argument is denied

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

 1

On appeal, Rhodes submits a document mentioning defendant Moscovich. We decline to consider this evidence as it was not submitted to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)

 2

We do not consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), to this appeal

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.