Case Name: Roberto Campa LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. RICE, Lt; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-30
Citations: 692 F. App'x 914
Docket Number: No. 16-16228
Parties: Roberto Campa LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. RICE, Lt; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 914–914

Head Matter:
Roberto Campa LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. RICE, Lt; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16228
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed June 30, 2017
Roberto Campa Lopez, Pro Se
Alicia Anne Bower, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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 Campa Lopez, 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Lopez's health. See Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment appropriate when "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference is demonstrated by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or medical need and harm caused by the indifference).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and 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.