
    Joseph Arthur RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELMORE, Correctional Lieutenant, Salinas Valley State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-16900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2010.
    
      Joseph Arthur Rodriguez, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Arthur Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials subjected him to excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and an order dismissing a claim. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir.2009); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim because Rodriguez failed to raise a triable issue as to whether prison officials “acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” by using pepper spray after Rodriguez and his cellmate repeatedly refused to comply with orders to exit them cell and be handcuffed so that prison officials could search their cell for a missing metal object. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.2002) (evidence that prison official administered second pepper spray after coughing and gagging was heard from cell “does not lead to the inference that the official used the pepper spray ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ”) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)).

The district court also properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claim because Rodriguez failed to allege facts supporting an inference that prison medical officials who examined him after his pepper spray decontamination knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety. See Clement, 298 F.3d at 904 (“ ‘Deliberate indifference’ is evidenced only ‘when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety ....’”) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)).

We do not consider Rodriguez’s contentions not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).

Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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