
    Carlos ESPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15778
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    
      Carlos Espino, Pro Se
    Leigh A. Stepp, Esquire, Anwyl & Stepp, LLP, Gold River, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Walgreen Co.
    Michael R. Mordaunt, Esquire, Lori A. Reihl, Attorney, Riggio Mordaunt & Kelly, Stockton, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Stockton MRI & Molecular Imaging Medical Center Inc.
    Bridget A. Moorhead, Esquire, Attorney, Selman Breitman LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
    Joseph H. Fagundes, Esquire, Amber C. Lance, Malm Fagundes LLP, Stockton, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Morris Sene-gor, Dr.
    Carol Naomi Finuliar, Attorney, Department of Industrial Relations, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Alvin Webber, Judge
    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

Carlos Espino appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims arising from his medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

We do not consider the merits of the district court’s dismissal of Espino’s action because Espino does not raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district court’s dismissal of any claim alleged in his operative complaint. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Ajrguments not’ raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

Appellees’ motions for summary affir-mance (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14) are denied as unnecessary.

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