Timothy Peoples, Jr. v. Richard Mack

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY PEOPLES, Jr., No. 16-17348
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01281-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD B. MACK,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Peoples, Jr., 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 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).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Peoples
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Mack was
deliberately indifferent in his treatment of Peoples’s health conditions. See id. at
1057-60 (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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Peoples’s motion
for recusal because Peoples failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See
28 U.S.C. § 455; United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting
forth standard of review); see also Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of
Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification of judge under
§ 455(a)).
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).
We reject as without merit Peoples’s contentions regarding the district
court’s jurisdiction and defendant Mack’s waiver of his right to reply to the action.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17348