
    David Robert BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. GLYNN, in his capacity as Doctor and Chief Medical Officer (CMO); et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56533
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    David Robert Bell, Pro Se
    Jon S. Tangonan, Esquire, AGCA—Of-fice of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bell’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner David Robert Bell 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. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive' risk to Bell’s health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion regarding diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights).

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).

Bell’s requests to file a late and oversized reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 20 and 21) are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 18.

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