NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER HALLORAN, No. 14-16126
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02443-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATTY SELLS, Nurse Practitioner at
Saguaro Correctional Facility, sued in her
individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Peter Halloran, a Hawaii state prisoner housed in Arizona, appeals pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Halloran
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his seizure and equilibrium disorders, or to his safety.
See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; neither a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider issues or arguments 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 reject as without merit Halloran’s contention that the district court erred
by failing to advise him of any alleged right to counsel.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16126