Raymond Redwine v. R. Branch , 703 F. App'x 465 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ALLEN REDWINE, No. 17-15038
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03109-TEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. BRANCH, M.D., Physician and Surgeon,
C.T.F. North Medical,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Allen Redwine, 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. § 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 Redwine
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Redwine’s serious medical needs. See id. at
1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows
of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in
medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference; a plaintiff “must
show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Roberts v.
Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a prisoner has no constitutional right
to outside medical care to supplement the medical care provided by the prison).
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).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15038