NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERROL LOVELL UNDERWOOD, No. 18-15944

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00346-JAM-KJN v.

MEMORANDUM* KHIN WIN, Doctor; Y. CHEN, Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Errol Lovell Underwood 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). Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Underwood failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Underwood’s bladder pain and urinary tract infection. 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 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 18-15944