
    Geraldine Kelley DARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher L. DRISCOLL, as executor of the estate of Dr. Scott H. M. Driscoll, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-15015
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Geraldine Kelley Darden, Pro Se
    Sonja 'M. Dahl, Esquire, Attorney, James Matthew Nelson, Attorney, Donnelly Nelson Depolo & Murray, APC, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Geraldine Kelley Darden, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Darden’s Eighth Amendment claim because Darden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Driscoll knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to her serious medical needs. See id. (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and ... harm caused by the indifference”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the expert declarations of two doctors submitted by Dr. Dris-coll in support of his motion for summary judgment. See Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563, 566-67 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for admitting expert testimony).

Darden’s motions for appointment of an expert witness, to enforce the district court’s order for subpoena duces tecum, and to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry Nos, 9, 14, 32) are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     