
    Gregory BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karina CASTILLO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16517
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed March 1, 2017
    Gregory Banks, Pro Se
    Shirley Blazich, Michael McLoughlin, LeAnn Sanders, Trial Attorney, Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Gregory Banks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need arising out of his pretrial detention at Clark County Detention Center. 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 may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on Banks’s deliberate indifference claim because under - any potentially applicable standard Banks failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of or disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Banks’s health. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); Lolli v. Cty. of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); cf. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).

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).

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