Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Charles Ryan ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 30 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr.,                       No. 20-17274
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04456-JAT-MTM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 21, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams, Jr. 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
    *
    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).
    Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Nicole
    Schaffer was deliberately indifferent to the wound on his leg. See 
    id. at 1057-60
     (a
    prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and
    disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere
    difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 
    296 F.3d 732
    ,
    745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay in medical treatment does not constitute deliberate
    indifference unless the delay led to significant injury).
    We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that defendant’s answering
    brief was untimely.
    We do not consider 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                                   20-17274
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-17274

Filed Date: 6/30/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/30/2021