NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID LEMUS, No. 19-55827 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01500-MMA-JLB v. MEMORANDUM* T. GUTIERREZ, Correctional Officer; et al.

Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David Lemus 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 safety and 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 for defendants Gutierrez and Hernandez because Lemus failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference”).

In his opening brief, Lemus fails to raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the district court’s summary judgment for defendant Ko. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-55827