NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 18-15764
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. WINDSOR, MD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit
Judges.
Rodney Jerome Womack, 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does
not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076,
1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not
constitute deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.
2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference).
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 18-15764