Case Information
*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steve Wilhelm 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. *2 § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rotman because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rotman was deliberately indifferent by causing a delay in Wilhelm’s hernia treatment. See Jett v. Penner , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference requires showing of harm “caused by” the alleged indifference); Hallett v. Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury); 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). Wilhelm’s request for entry of default judgment, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16925
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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).