Jermaine Devon Watkins v. Catherine Baum, Arnp; Steve Hammond, Md

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERMAINE DEVON WATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE BAUM, ARNP; STEVE
HAMMOND, MD,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35238
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05494-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Jermaine Devon Watkins 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
FILED
JUN 06 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 because Watkins
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his urological and nephrological pain. See id. at 1057-58
(9th Cir. 2004) (neither negligence nor a prisoner’s difference of opinion with
prison medical authorities constitutes deliberate indifference; treatment must be
“medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and “chosen in conscious
disregard of an excessive risk” to a prisoner’s health (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Watkins’ contentions that the district court failed to consider his
evidence and erred in considering defendant Baum’s renewed motion for summary
judgment.
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.
14-35238 2

-- 2 of 2 --