Michael More v. LAURENCE ENDE, Nurse Practitioner at Lewis/Bachman, individual/official;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL MORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAURENCE ENDE, Nurse Practitioner at
Lewis/Bachman, individual/official; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, A.D.O.C. at
Central Office, individual/official; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-16808
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00626-DGC-
CDB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
* 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
FEB 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16808
Former Arizona state prisoner Michael More appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for defendants 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 cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby
v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because More failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants were deliberately indifferent in responding to his chest pain and
defibrillator issues. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004)
(a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; 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 (9th Cir.
2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence
in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --