KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW V. ALVARO TRAQUINA, No. 13-16645 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-16645 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03145-EFB v. MEMORANDUM* ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, M.D.; W. THOMPSON, LVN, as CTC Specialty Clinic Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 10, 2015*** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Bartholomew appeals pro se from the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bartholomew failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Bartholomew’s skin condition or shoulder pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence or medical malpractice is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). We reject Bartholomew’s contentions that the magistrate judge was biased and that defendants had not consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16645
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.
