Stanley Rimer v. DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANLEY RIMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17086
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Stanley Rimer appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference
to his serious dental and 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.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17086
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rimer failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious dental or medical needs. See id. at 1057-60
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,
or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.
2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
We reject as without merit Rimer’s contentions that the district court denied
him equal protection, violated his right to due process, or showed partiality.
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --