Court Opinion

ID: 6317377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-24 21:00:44.349764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:35.335099
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, Sr.,                        No. 21-15348

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SAM WONG, Dr.; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Arthur Glenn Jones, Sr. 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

      *
             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).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jones failed

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

deliberately indifferent to his back and leg conditions. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison

official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of

opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate

indifference).

      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).

      All pending requests, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       21-15348