NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INGINIO HERNANDEZ, No. 19-16782

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00606-MMD-

CBC v. ROMEO ARANAS; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees, and GOODINEZ, Nurse,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Inginio Hernandez appeals pro se from the district

*

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). 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. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hernandez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his shoulder, spine, or finger injuries. 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); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

We reject as without merit Hernandez’s contentions that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or improperly resolved questions of fact reserved for a jury.

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).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

2 19-16782 See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 19-16782