Opinion
21-15994
02-25-2022
JEFFREY E. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD THOMAS, Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center; PEREZ, Nurse at Saguaro Correctional Center; D. MARR, Health Services Administrator at Saguaro Correctional Center; N. SAMBERG, Assistant Chief of Security at Saguaro Correctional Center; ORTEGA, Hotel Bravo's Unit Counselor at Saguaro Correctional Center; J. VALENZUELA, Grievance Coordinator at Saguaro Correctional Center; B. GRIEGO, Assistant Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00527-DWL-JFM for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Nevada state prisoner Jeffrey E. Rodriguez 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Perez was deliberately indifferent to his migraine condition. See id. at 1060-61 (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 difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.