BLAKELY v. PETERSON PAC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Ralph Howard BLAKELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick PETERSON, PAC; Deborah J. Tonhofer, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35120

Decided: June 29, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Ralph Howard Blakely, Pro Se Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Patrick Peterson, PAC Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Deborah J. Tonhofer, Dr.

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Ralph Howard Blakely 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, Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Blakely failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, including his alleged need for a wheelchair. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (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 a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.