Case Name: Jermaine Devon WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BAUM, ARNP; Steve Hammond, MD, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-06
Citations: 651 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 14-35238
Parties: Jermaine Devon WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BAUM, ARNP; Steve Hammond, MD, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Jermaine Devon WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BAUM, ARNP; Steve Hammond, MD, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-35238
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2016
Filed June 6, 2016
Jermaine .Devon Watkins, Airway Heights, WA, Pro Se.
Patricia Campbell Fetterly, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Torts Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Washington state prisoner Jermaine Devon Watkins 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his urological and nephrological pain. See id. at 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (neither negligence nor a prisoner's difference of opinion with prison medical authorities constitutes deliberate indifference; treatment must be "medically unacceptable under the circumstances" and "chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk" to a prisoner's health (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Watkins' contentions that the district court failed to consider his evidence and erred in considering defendant Baum's renewed motion for summary judgment.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or 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.