
    Andre L. REVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven Michael ROCHE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15719
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 02, 2016
    Andre L. Revis, Pro Se
    
      Peter Anthony Meshot, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andre L. Reyis, a California state, prisoner, 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 for defendant Roche because Revis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Roche was deliberately indifferent in providing post-operative care or otherwise personally participated in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. See id, at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F,3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or. there is a “sufficient causal connection between th.e supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

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