Ronald Marshall v. Ann Ash, Md;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD MARSHALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANN ASH, MD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16804
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00141-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ronald Marshall appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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).
FILED
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16804
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Moore v. Glickman, 113 F.3d 988, 989 (9th
Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marshall
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Ash was
deliberately indifferent in treating Marshall’s toe and foot. See Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical
malpractice, negligence, or a difference in medical opinion concerning the course
of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject Marshall’s contention as unsupported by the record that the
district court made an improper credibility determination.
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 of 2 --