Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dwayne EICHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark NESSENSON, DDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17942.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 11, 2013
    
    Filed Feb. 19, 2013.
    Dwayne Eichler, lone, CA, pro se.
    Diana N. Chinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Diana N. Chinn, Deputy Attorney General, Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dwayne Eichler, a California state prisoner, 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Eichler failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Eichler’s dental needs. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. 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.