Case Name: Paul E. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SEPULVEDA, M.D.; Pompan, M.D., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-08
Citations: 582 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 13-16487
Parties: Paul E. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SEPULVEDA, M.D.; Pompan, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Paul E. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SEPULVEDA, M.D.; Pompan, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16487.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed July 8, 2014.
Paul E. Ray, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Oren Rosenthal, Reily & Jeffery, Northridge, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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
Paul E. Ray, a former 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 Ray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his biceps injury. See id. at 1060 ("Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment."); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) ("[Wjhere a defendant has based his actions on a medical judgment that either of two alternative courses of treatment would be medically acceptable under the circumstances, plaintiff has failed to show deliberate indifference, as a matter of law."); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.