CALDERON v. LAM (2021)

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Rogelio Calderon 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 for defendants because Calderon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Calderon's heart issues. See id. at 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate's health).

Calderon has waived any challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment on Calderon's allegations against defendant Lam for falsifying or omitting information from Calderon's medical records, as well as the district court's grant of defendants’ motion to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment, because he did not raise them in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.