
    Fraisure Earl SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOLANO COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16624.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 9, 2014.
    Fraisure Earl Smith, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Jerome Varanini, Trimble, Sherinian & Varanini, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fraisure Earl Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging denial of medical treatment while confined in So-lano County Jail pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

We do not decide what legal standard applies to this case because, under either the “professional judgment” or “deliberate indifference” standard, Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants improperly denied him medical treatment. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-23, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (imposing liability where a decision is “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to amend the deadline for dispositive motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) (requiring good cause); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002) (stating standard of review).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     