Court Opinion

ID: 2704791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-04 21:00:45.227295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:57.584011
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 4 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY WINDELL LEE,                               No. 13-16811

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-
                                                 BAM
  v.

WAGNER, Dr.,                                     MEMORANDUM*

               Defendant - Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                    Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 22, 2014**

Before:        GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

       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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 anti-depressant medication. See Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (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.

                                           2                                      13-16811