Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0970-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karriem B. SHAHEED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, San Quentin; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16432
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 04, 2016
    Karriem B. Shaheed, Pro Se
    Rohit Kodical, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Jeffrey R. Vincent, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees California Correctional Health Care Services, J. De La Cruz, R.N., Elena Tootell, Dr., Andrew W. Deems, N. Podolsky, R.N., J. Lewis
    Jeffrey R. Vincent, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Reyes, Dr.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Karriem B. Shaheed appeals pro se from the district Court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shaheed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ankle injury. See id. at 1058, 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

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

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