Case Name: Todd M. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandy SNIDER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-25
Citations: 514 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 12-16360
Parties: Todd M. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandy SNIDER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Todd M. HONEYCUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandy SNIDER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 25, 2013.
Todd M. Honeycutt, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Todd M. Honey-cutt 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 related to orthopedic shoes. 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 Honeycutt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded his serious medical conditions warranting orthopedic footwear. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (for deliberate indifference claim, prisoner must make a subjective showing that prison officials knew of and disregarded "an excessive risk to inmate health or safety"); see also Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60 (inmate's difference of opinion with his physician, or a difference of opinion between physicians, as to what treatment is appropriate does not constitute deliberate indifference).
Issues raised by Honeycutt in his briefs that are not supported by argument, such as the denial of his post-judgment motion to alter or amend his complaint, are deemed waived. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.