MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Charles E. Griffin II 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Griffins deliberate indifference claim against defendants Do-Williams, Williams, Adams, Saipher, and Malakkla because Griffin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health in the treatment of his osteoarthritis and chronic hip and back pain. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Griffins retaliation claim alleged in the second amended complaint because Griffin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
We reject as without merit Griffins contention that the district judge was biased or failed to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judges Findings & Recommendations.
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).
AFFIRMED.