Opinion
No. 18-15764
05-30-2019
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WINDSOR, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, 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 Womack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference).
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.