Court Opinion

ID: 6344440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-26 20:00:46.267958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:19.499311
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 26 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL TORRES,                                  No.    21-15412

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00188-NONE-
                                                SAB
 v.

ISMAIL PATEL, Dr. at KVSP; W. ULIT,             MEMORANDUM*
Dr. at KVSP; MARTA SPAETH, CP&S;
MANASRAH, R.N.; B. JOHN; UPPAL; S.
SERDA; SPECIAL APPEARANCE,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Miguel Torres 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.

      *
             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).
§ 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 Torres failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Patel was

deliberately indifferent to his hypertension. See id. at 1057-60 (explaining that 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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       21-15412