NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA, No. 18-55218
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
5:14-cv-00543-VAP-KK
v.
ANGEL ORTIZ, M.D., in individual MEMORANDUM*
capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Pedro Camacho-Corona appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 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. May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th
Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camacho-
Corona’s claim against defendant Blier because Camacho-Corona failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in treatment for his
surgery wound evinces in deliberate indifference. See Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d
732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay caused significant harm).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camacho-
Corona’s claim against defendant Castillo on the basis of qualified immunity
because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying
Camacho-Corona access to a wheelchair was unlawful under the circumstances.
See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for
qualified immunity).
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