RYAN v. CORIZON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-23No. No. 20-17200

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that Ryan failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Michael Ryan, an Arizona state prisoner, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ryan claimed that a defendant named Weigel was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs related to a knee injury. The appellate court reviewed the case from scratch and found that Ryan failed to establish any genuine factual dispute on the deliberate indifference claim, which requires meeting a high legal standard—one that is not satisfied by mere medical malpractice, negligence, or disagreement over treatment decisions.

The court also rejected Ryan's argument that he was improperly denied discovery during the litigation. Ryan raised several arguments in his appeal, but the court considered only those issues that were specifically and clearly presented in his opening brief, declining to address other matters. The court additionally denied as moot a separate motion Ryan had filed requesting a status update.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was shown in the treatment of a knee injury
Whether medical malpractice or negligence satisfies the legal standard for deliberate indifference
Whether the prisoner was improperly denied discovery

Procedural posture

Ryan appealed pro se from a district court's entry of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Michael T. Ryan 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, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ryan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Weigel was deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Ryans knee injury. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We reject as without merit Ryans contention he was improperly denied discovery.

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).

Ryans motion for status update (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.