NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, No. 20-35120
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00081-TOR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATRICK PETERSON, PAC; DEBORAH
J. TONHOFER, Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Ralph Howard Blakely 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, Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Blakely
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, including his alleged need for a
wheelchair. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference
of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference).
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 20-35120