Daniel Murphy Coston v. Majiad Rahimifar, M.d.; Mushtaq Ahmed

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL MURPHY COSTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAJIAD RAHIMIFAR, M.D.; MUSHTAQ
AHMED,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ALCANNO, Medical Doctor; CONALL
MCCABE, M.D.; C. OGBUEHI, Physician
Asst.,
Defendants.
No. 20-17058
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00765-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeremy D. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 15, 2022***
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17058
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Murphy Coston 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Dr. Rahimifar
because Coston failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr.
Rahimifar was deliberately indifferent to Coston’s postoperative care. See id. at
1060-61 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard and a showing of medical
malpractice, negligence, or difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment).
In his opening brief, Coston fails to challenge the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for Dr. Ahmed, and he has therefore waived any such
challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal,
arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”);
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --