Case Name: Steven Hairl WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony ENENMOH, (CMO) Chief Medical Officer; G. Miller, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-26
Citations: 608 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 13-16798
Parties: Steven Hairl WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony ENENMOH, (CMO) Chief Medical Officer; G. Miller, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Steven Hairl WILHELM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony ENENMOH, (CMO) Chief Medical Officer; G. Miller, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed June 26, 2015.
Steven Hairl Wilhelm, pro se.
Timothy Howard Delgado, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Steven Hairl Wilhelm, 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wilhelm had a serious medical need, and whether defendant Dr. Enen-moh acted with deliberate indifference when he denied Wilhelm a prescription for medicated or non-prison-issued soap. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (a serious medical need exists if a failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the •unnecessary and wánton infliction of pain); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a prisoner's difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider whether summary judgment was properly granted to defendant Miller because Wilhelm did not address it in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) ("[Ajrguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").
Wilhelm's request for ruling, filed on January 26, 2015, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.