NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY CORNIEL, No. 20-16296
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00157-MMD-
WGC
v.
CANDACE, Physician; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees,
and
NAPH CARE; WCDF,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Anthony Corniel appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate
medical care while he was a pretrial detainee at Washoe County Detention Facility.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v.
County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Corniel
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’
treatment of his right-hand injury was objectively unreasonable. See id. at 1125
(setting forth elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Corniel’s request
for an extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment because
Corniel failed to demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Ahanchian v.
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
standard of review and balancing test to determine whether a party’s failure to
meet a deadline constitutes excusable neglect).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or 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 20-16296