
    Rodney L. PLANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kim SPAULDING; April Dawson, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35846
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 03, 2016
    Rodney L, Plant, Boise, ID, Pro Se.
    Mark Kubinski, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee Kim Spaulding.
    John J. Burke, Elam & Burke, PA, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee April Dawson.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodney L. Plant, a former Idaho 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant- Dawson because Plant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dawson was deliberately indifferent in treating Plant after Plant broke his prosthetic foot. See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation of there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     