Case Name: Roberto JUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROCAMORA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-03
Citations: 667 F. App'x 949
Docket Number: No. 15-15642
Parties: Roberto JUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROCAMORA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 949–950

Head Matter:
Roberto JUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROCAMORA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15642
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 03, 2016
Roberto Juarez, Pro Se
Wilfred T. Fong, Esquire, AGCA—Of-fice of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roberto Juarez, 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 Juarez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his injured wrist. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Contrary to Juarez's contention, the district court's decision did not rest on the grievance responder's misstatement that Juarez was capable of playing basketball.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.