Court Opinion

ID: 4359920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-17 21:00:35.042559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:44.060486
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 17 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY RIMER,                                  No. 17-17086

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-
                                                CWH
 v.

DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; et al.,                   MEMORANDUM*

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                 Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before:      TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Stanley Rimer appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference

to his serious dental and 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 Rimer failed

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

deliberately indifferent to his serious dental or medical needs. 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); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.

2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

      We reject as without merit Rimer’s contentions that the district court denied

him equal protection, violated his right to due process, or showed partiality.

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      17-17086