Noel Keith Watkins v. Bick; Dhillon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOEL KEITH WATKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BICK; DHILLON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15817
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00416-WBS-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Noel Keith Watkins 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.
FILED
AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his cardiological pain. See id. at 1057-58 (to establish
deliberate indifference, treatment must be “medically unacceptable under the
circumstances” and “chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk” to a
prisoner’s health (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); neither
negligence nor a prisoner’s difference of opinion with prison medical authorities
constitutes 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.
15-15817 2

-- 2 of 2 --