Case Name: Bobby Windell LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAGNER, Dr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-04
Citations: 584 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 13-16811
Parties: Bobby Windell LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAGNER, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 446–446

Head Matter:
Bobby Windell LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAGNER, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-16811.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed Aug. 4, 2014.
Bobby Windell Lee, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Vickie P. Whitney, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
California state prisoner Bobby Windell Lee 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 Lee failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Wagner was deliberately indifferent to Lee's need for antidepressant medication. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health).
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.