Case Name: Gustavo C. ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas GILLESPIE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 671 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 15-17242
Parties: Gustavo C. ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas GILLESPIE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Gustavo C. ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas GILLESPIE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-17242
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Gustavo C. Estrada, Pro Se
Lyssa Anderson, Attorney, Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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 Gustavo C. Estrada appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Munoz be cause Estrada failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Munoz knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Estrada's safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Estrada's motion for reconsideration because the evidence Estrada submitted was not newly discovered. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth standard of review and noting that evidence is not newly discovered if it could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief. 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.