
    David B. TURNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADSON, Captain at GBDF; Farris, Sergeant at GBDF, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55444
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    David B. Turner, Jr., Pro Se
    Melissa M. Holmes, Senior Deputy, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    
      Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David B. Turner, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims regarding his conditions of confinement and medical treatment while he was housed in a detention facility. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Turner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Turner’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (while prison officials must ensure that inmates receive clothing and medical care, prison officials must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health to violate the Eighth Amendment).

To the extent that Turner contends the district court erred in denying Turner’s motions for default judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion because the clerk never entered a default, and defendants were never in default. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review).

We reject as without merit Turner’s contention that defendants’ answer contradicted statements in their declarations, that the district court had a conflict of interest, and that Turner was harmed as a result of the district court changing the dates of the settlement conference.

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