
    Danny GARCIA Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALISHER, Dr.; et al. Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15804
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    
      Danny Garcia, Pro Se
    Wilfred T. Fong, Esquire, AGCA—Of-fice of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, 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

Danny Garcia, a California 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 because Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical conditions. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Contrary to Garcia’s argument that he was denied fair notice of the rules and procedures pertaining to summary judgment and an opportunity to be heard, the record shows that defendants served Garcia with concurrent notice of the requirements of summary judgment set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Garcia’s motion to accept a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief at Docket Entry No. 10. To the extent that Garcia seeks leave to supplement the record, this motion (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

Garcia’s other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 13) are denied.

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