MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner Christopher Andrew Bistryski appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, as well as claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”). 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 on Bistryskis deliberate indifference claim because Bistryski failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Bistryskis mental issues. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmates health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bistryskis disability discrimination claims because Bistryski failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against him because of a disability. See Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (“There is no significant difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and the [RA]”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bistryskis request for appointment of an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 because such an appointment was not necessary for the court to make its determination. See Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A Rule 706 expert typically acts as an advisor to the court on complex scientific, medical, or technical matters.”); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the magistrate judges report and recommendation without giving Bistryski an opportunity to reply to defendants’ response to his objections because the local rules did not allow for a reply. See W.D. Wash. Civ. R. 72(b)(2); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for district courts compliance with its local rules).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFRIMED.