Ferdinand Reynolds v. DAVID NGUYEN, Medical Doctor - Corcoran State Prison, Individual; and official capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERDINAND REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID NGUYEN, Medical Doctor -
Corcoran State Prison, Individual; and
official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
MICHELLE WOFFORD, Captain;
Individual; and official capacity; NATE
WILCOX, Correctional Counselor III
Former Litigation Officer, Individual; and
official capacity; MERIAM HA, Medical
Doctor's Assistant, Individual; and official
capacity; AMIR RAMADAN, Medical
Doctor - Corcoran State Prison, Individual;
and official capacity,
Defendants.
No. 22-55176
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-01477-MWF-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted February 1, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ferdinand Reynolds appeals pro se the district
court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Nguyen on
Reynolds’ medical deliberate indifference claim because Dr. Nguyen promptly
treated Reynolds ear infection by providing medicated ear drops and referring
Reynolds to an audiologist. Reynolds provided no evidence that this treatment was
medically unacceptable under the circumstances, or that it was chosen in conscious
disregard of an excessive risk to Reynolds’ health. See id. at 1058.
We do not reach Reynolds’ argument that he exhausted his claims fully
before he filed his complaint, because the district court did not grant summary
judgment on that basis. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. & N.
Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 946 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir.
2020) (“In general, an appellate court does not decide issues that the trial court did
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --