NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD MARSHALL, No. 17-16804 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00141-JAS v. MEMORANDUM* ANN ASH, MD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Ronald Marshall appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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).

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Moore v. Glickman, 113 F.3d 988, 989 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marshall failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Ash was deliberately indifferent in treating Marshall’s toe and foot. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference in medical opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We reject Marshall’s contention as unsupported by the record that the district court made an improper credibility determination.

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).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16804