
    Berton G. TOAVS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BANNISTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17199
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    
      Berton G. Toavs, Pro Se
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NY, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Berton G. Toavs, a Nevada state prisoner, 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. Togucki v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Toavs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Dr. Bannister, Dr. Johns, or Dr. Mar were deliberately indifferent in treating Toavs’s medical problems. See id. at 1057, 1060 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a difference in opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Toavs’s motion to amend his complaint because Toavs failed to establish “good cause” for his delay in seeking amendment, and amendment would have been futile. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and “good cause” requirement to modify a scheduling order); see also Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.... ”).

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).

Toavs’s opposed motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

Toavs’s request for costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     