Rogelio Calderon v. PHUC LAM, Prison Doctor;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO CALDERON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHUC LAM, Prison Doctor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15731
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04384-KAW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 17, 2021***
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rogelio Calderon 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.
* 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
AUG 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15731
§ 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 defendants
because Calderon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants were deliberately indifferent to Calderon’s heart issues. See id. at
1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a
defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).
Calderon has waived any challenge to the district court’s grant of summary
judgment on Calderon’s allegations against defendant Lam for falsifying or
omitting information from Calderon’s medical records, as well as the district
court’s grant of defendants’ motion to file a supplemental motion for summary
judgment, because he did not raise them in his opening brief. See Indep. Towers of
Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues
which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144
(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening
brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --