# Bryant Brown v. Do Williams

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 18, 2017 · 694 F. App'x 513

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4187168

## Case

- **Full name:** Bryant Keith BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Do WILLIAMS, M.D., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 2017
- **Citations:** 694 F. App'x 513
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Canby, Kozinski, Hawkins
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4187168

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYANT KEITH BROWN, No. 16-16847

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02040-NC

v.
MEMORANDUM*
DO WILLIAMS, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted July 11, 2017***

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Bryant Keith Brown 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.

*
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).
§ 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 because Brown failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant acted with

deliberate indifference by denying Brown’s requests for alternative restraints. See

id. at 1058-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows

of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice,

negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not

amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-16847

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4187168. Public record. Not legal advice.