John F. Smith v. James Beneditti;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN F. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES BENEDITTI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16888
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00144-ECR-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
John F. Smith, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent 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,
FILED
NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16888 2
1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in the treatment of his knee. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison
official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety; negligence and a mere
difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
744-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces
deliberate indifference must show that the delay led to further injury).
We do not consider issues that were not raised in the opening brief. See
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --