NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY BANKS, No. 15-16517
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00324-RCJ-PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KARINA CASTILLO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Gregory Banks appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need arising out of his pretrial detention at Clark County Detention
Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
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).
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any
basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper on Banks’s deliberate indifference claim
because under any potentially applicable standard Banks failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of or disregarded an
excessive risk of serious harm to Banks’s health. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-
58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; neither a prisoner’s
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in
treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); Lolli v. Cty. of
Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need is analyzed under the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but
same standards apply); cf. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-
71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment
failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2