Case Name: Karriem B. SHAHEED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, San Quentin; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-04
Citations: 667 F. App'x 970
Docket Number: No. 15-16432
Parties: Karriem B. SHAHEED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, San Quentin; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 970–971

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.