FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO JOSE DEL MURO- No. 13-55134
GUERRERO,
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02571-JM-
Plaintiff - Appellant, WMC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FERNANDO ARRIOLA, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Jose del Muro-Guerrero appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
serious medical needs while in federal custody. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192
(9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because del Muro-Guerrero failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference by denying surgery for a
nasal obstruction. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.
2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the
defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health; a mere
difference in opinion concerning the course of treatment is insufficient); see also
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although
the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth
Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, applies to pretrial
detainees, we apply the same standards in both cases[.]” (internal citation
omitted)).
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-55134