
    Stanley RIMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian SANDOVAL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15384
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed June 30, 2017
    Stanley Rimer, Pro Se
    D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Brian Sandoval
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Catherine Cortez-Masto, Ross Miller, E. K. McDaniel, Harold Wickham, James G. Cox, Dwight Neven, Tesla Wilson, John Doe Lee, Jamie Rainone, Robert Houke, Frank Dreeson, Efrain Lona, Robert Owens, Linda Adams, Richard Bannister, Cary Leavitt, Cynthia Sablica, Tatiana So-well, Jane Doe Doni
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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 Stanley Rimer 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. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rimer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his anxiety condition. See id. at 1074, 1081-82 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk of harm to the prisoner; “[m]ere indifference,” negligence, or medical malpractice are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

We reject as meritless Rimer’s contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights and was biased.

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,
     