Court Opinion

ID: 9945891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 19:01:18.189301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:16.316016
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM WATSON,                                 No. 23-15450

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00072-DLR-DMF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
P GERTZ, Administrative Director of
Nursing; NATALYA WEIGEL, Health Care
Provider/Doctor, previously named Natalie
Weigel, aka per Doc 16 also known as
Natalie Weigel; MAUREEN GAY, Health
Care Provider/Doctor; ANGEL
MERRIMAN, Health Care Provider/Doctor,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner William Watson appeals pro se from the district

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Watson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Weigel was

deliberately indifferent in treating Watson’s hernia. See id. at 1057-60 (holding

that deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be

aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical

malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of

treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Watson’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry

No. 24) is denied as unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    23-15450