United States v. 2020-12-15 | 19-16782 | INGINIO HERNANDEZ V. ROMEO ARANAS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INGINIO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROMEO ARANAS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

GOODINEZ, Nurse,

Defendant.

No. 19-16782

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00606-MMD-
CBC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Inginio Hernandez 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).
FILED

DEC 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16782
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 because Hernandez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating his shoulder, spine, or finger injuries. See id. at
1057-60 (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); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence
in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).
We reject as without merit Hernandez’s contentions that the district court
failed to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, or improperly resolved questions of fact reserved for a jury.
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).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

3 19-16782
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.