
    Willie F. STEPHENS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jenny ESPINOZA, M.D. Phys Med.; Juliet Dela Cruz, R.N., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16255
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Willie F. Stephens, Sr., Pro Se
    Robert Santos Sandoval, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Willie F. Stephens, Sr., 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 Stephens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stephens’ motions to compel discovery because Stephens failed to demonstrate that defendants failed to respond timely to his discovery requests. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that “[bjroad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

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