Dwayne Eichler v. Mark Nessenson, Dds;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DWAYNE EICHLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK NESSENSON, DDS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17942
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02894-JAM-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Dwayne Eichler, 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.
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17942 2
§ 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 Eichler failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Eichler’s dental needs. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with
deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish
that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must
show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable
and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --