Case ID: f-appx_627/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vincent U. SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TATE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16673.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 17, 2015.
    Vincent U. Solomon, Corcoran, CA, Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vincent U. Solomon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Solomon’s Eighth Amendment claim because Solomon failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We reject Solomon’s contentions regarding judicial bias.

Solomon’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

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