WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr. v. Charles L. Ryan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17274
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04456-JAT-MTM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams, Jr. 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
JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17274
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Nicole
Schaffer was deliberately indifferent to the wound on his leg. See id. at 1057-60 (a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere
difference in medical opinion are insufficient); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay in medical treatment does not constitute deliberate
indifference unless the delay led to significant injury).
We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that defendant’s answering
brief was untimely.
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 --