NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY E. RODRIGUEZ, No. 21-15994

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00527-DWL-JFM

v. MEMORANDUM* TODD THOMAS, Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center; PEREZ, Nurse at Saguaro Correctional Center; D. MARR, Health Services Administrator at Saguaro Correctional Center; N. SAMBERG, Assistant Chief of Security at Saguaro Correctional Center; ORTEGA, Hotel Bravo's Unit Counselor at Saguaro Correctional Center; J. VALENZUELA, Grievance Coordinator at Saguaro Correctional Center; B. GRIEGO, Assistant Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

* 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). Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Jeffrey E. Rodriguez 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.

2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Perez was

deliberately indifferent to his migraine condition. See id. at 1060-61 (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 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).

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

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

AFFIRMED.

2