Steven Vlasich v. C. NAREDDY, Dr.; O. BEREGOVSKAYA, Dr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN VLASICH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. NAREDDY, Dr.; O. BEREGOVSKAYA,
Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
C. MCCABE, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-15630
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00326-LJO-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Vlasich 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15630
court’s judgment following a jury verdict 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 for substantial evidence the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a jury verdict. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010,
1021 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
We sustain the jury verdict because it is supported by substantial evidence.
See id. (“A jury’s verdict must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence,
which is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion, even if it is also
possible to draw a contrary conclusion.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --