RODNEY WOMACK V. J. WINDSOR, No. 18-15764 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15764 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN MEMORANDUM* J. WINDSOR, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: Judges. THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Rodney Jerome Womack, 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 needs. 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 Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 18-15764

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.