Court Opinion

ID: 2655093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-27 21:07:54.711878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:58.309573
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 27 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL D. WOODFALL,                             No. 13-15147

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00163-SRB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA; et al.,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 18, 2014**

Before:        ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Michael D. Woodfall, a former Hawaii 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 while housed in Arizona. We

          *
             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).
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 Woodfall

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent in treating his lower back injury. See id. at 1057-58 (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; neither a prisoner’s difference

of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing

or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate 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)

(per curiam).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    13-15147