
    Robert Wayne AHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benjamin GRIEGO, incorrectly named as Ben Gregio; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16601.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 12, 2012.
    Robert Wayne Ahn, Aiea, HI, pro se.
    Jamie Dennise Guzman, Struck, Wien-eke & Love, PLC, Daniel Patrick Struck, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Nicholas D. Acedo, Esquire, Struck, Wieneke & Love, PLC, Chandler, AZ, for Defendants Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Wayne Ahn, an Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 on Ahn’s claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety, because Ahn failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“a prison official cannot be found liable [for deliberate indifference] ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). To the extent that Ahn alleges that defendant Poehlman used excessive force against him, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Ahn failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged force was applied maliciously or sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (explaining that “the core judicial inquiry is ... whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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