U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2018

David Patkins v. Tran

David Patkins v. Tran
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 26, 2018

David Patkins v. Tran

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 26 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID C. PATKINS, No. 17-16533 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05073-EMC v. MEMORANDUM* TRAN, Dentist; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

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).

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- (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 17-16533

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.