William Watson v. P Gertz

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

William Watson v. P Gertz

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM WATSON, No. 23-15450

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00072-DLR-DMF

v. MEMORANDUM* P GERTZ, Administrative Director of Nursing; NATALYA WEIGEL, Health Care Provider/Doctor, previously named Natalie Weigel, aka per Doc 16 also known as Natalie Weigel; MAUREEN GAY, Health Care Provider/Doctor; ANGEL MERRIMAN, Health Care Provider/Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner William Watson 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 Watson

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

deliberately indifferent in treating Watson’s hernia. See id. at 1057-60 (holding

that deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be

aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s 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).

Watson’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry

No. 24) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15450

Reference

Status
Unpublished