Opinion
No. 17-17086
01-17-2019
STANLEY RIMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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. 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.