Errol Lovell Underwood v. KHIN WIN, Doctor; Y. CHEN, Doctor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERROL LOVELL UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KHIN WIN, Doctor; Y. CHEN, Doctor,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15944
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00346-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Errol Lovell Underwood 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
* 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 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15944
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Underwood
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Underwood’s bladder pain and urinary
tract infection. 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).
We do not consider 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 --