Rodney Plant v. Kim Spaulding ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 03 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RODNEY L. PLANT,                                 No. 14-35846
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00316-BLW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KIM SPAULDING; APRIL DAWSON,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 26, 2016**
    Before:        SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Rodney L. Plant, a former Idaho 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
    *
    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).
    Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
    Dawson because Plant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
    whether Dawson was deliberately indifferent in treating Plant after Plant broke his
    prosthetic foot. See 
    id. at 1057
    (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
    only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s
    health); see also Starr v. Baca, 
    652 F.3d 1202
    , 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor
    is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional
    deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s
    wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    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                                      14-35846
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-35846

Judges: Schroeder, Canby, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024