David Bell v. M. Glynn , 696 F. App'x 249 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 17 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID ROBERT BELL,                              No. 16-56533
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01397-BEN-PCL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    M. GLYNN, in his capacity as Doctor and
    Chief Medical Officer (CMO); et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 9, 2017**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner David Robert Bell 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). Bell’s request for oral
    argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
    § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 
    705 F.3d 1021
    , 1026 (9th Cir.
    2013). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bell failed to
    raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and
    disregarded an excessive risk to Bell’s health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (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 regarding diagnosing or treating
    a medical condition does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights).
    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).
    Bell’s requests to file a late and oversized reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 20
    and 21) are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry
    No. 18.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       16-56533
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-56533

Citation Numbers: 696 F. App'x 249

Judges: Schroeder, Tashima, Smith

Filed Date: 8/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024