From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moser v. Stewart

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 55 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted June 14, 2005.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Goldia Moser, Sikeston, MO, pro se.

Susanna Carballo Pineda, DAG, AGAZ--Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Mark Douglas Dillon, Sacks Tierney PA, Scottsdale, AZ, Peter M. Coppinger, Gregory D. Cote, Gadsby Hannah LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants-Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Goldia Moser appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of Arizona Department of Corrections officials, and employees of Canteen Corporation of America, in James William Marlow's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with a nutritionally-adequate diet. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on Marlow's claim that the low-residue diet prison doctors prescribed was nutritionally inadequate, as to a difference of opinion between a prisoner and the prison doctor does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, summary judgment was proper on Marlow's claim that he was occasionally served meals that did not comply with his medically-prescribed diet. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990) (recognizing even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

Page 56.

Goldia Moser's motion to be substituted in as the appellant is granted. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(a). The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Goldia Moser is the named appellant.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Moser v. Stewart

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 24, 2005
137 F. App'x 55 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Moser v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:Goldia MOSER, personal representative for the estate of James William…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 2005

Citations

137 F. App'x 55 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

Shottenkirk v. Patton

Although Shottenkirk disagreed with Sims's approach, there is no evidence to suggest that Sims acted with…