Court Opinion

ID: 4258287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-26 20:00:36.50876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:19.425982
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 26 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID C. PATKINS,                               No.    17-16533

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05073-EMC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TRAN, Dentist; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      David C. Patkins, a California 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. 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 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).
2004), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Patkins

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

deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Patkins’s dental bridge. See id. at 1057-

60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice,

negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not

amount to deliberate indifference).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patkins’s motion

for discovery because Patkins failed to show that he was actually and substantially

prejudiced. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th

Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).

      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); Smith v.

Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       17-16533