Opinion
20-17200
09-23-2021
MICHAEL T. RYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02596-DJH Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Arizona state prisoner Michael T. Ryan 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 Ryan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Weigel was deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Ryan's knee injury. 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).
We reject as without merit Ryan's contention he was improperly denied discovery.
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).
Ryan's motion for status update (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.