Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond Allen REDWINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. BRANCH, M.D., Physician and Surgeon, C.T.F. North Medical, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-15038
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    NOVEMBER 20, 2017
    Raymond Allen Redwine, Soledad, CA, pro se
    Micah Charles Edmonds Osgood, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymond Allen Redwine, 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Redwine failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Redwine’s serious medical needs. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference; a plaintiff “must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a prisoner has no constitutional right to outside medical care to supplement the medical care provided by the prison).

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).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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