ARTHUR GLENN JONES, Sr. v. SAM WONG, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR GLENN JONES, Sr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAM WONG, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15348
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Arthur Glenn Jones, Sr. 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15348
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jones failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his back and leg conditions. 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 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).
All pending requests, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --