David C. Patkins v. TRAN, Dentist;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID C. PATKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRAN, Dentist; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16533
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05073-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
David C. Patkins, a California state prisoner, 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
MAR 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16533
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Patkins
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Patkins’s dental bridge. See id. at 1057-
60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice,
negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patkins’s motion
for discovery because Patkins failed to show that he was actually and substantially
prejudiced. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review).
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); Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --