David Gonzalez v. PHUC LAM, Dr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHUC LAM, Dr.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16876
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-07508-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Gonzalez 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.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
* 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 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16876
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gonzalez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lam was
deliberately indifferent to Gonzalez’s complaints of eye pain and other eye-related
issues. See id. at 1060-61 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if
he or she knows of and disregards a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical
malpractice, negligence or difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment
does not amount to deliberate indifference).
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 --