
    Noel Keith WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BICK; Dhillon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15817
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 05, 2016
    Noel Keith Watkins, Pro Se
    Kevin W. Reager, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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 Noel Keith Watkins 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his cardiological pain. See id. at 1057-58 (to establish deliberate indifference, treatment must be “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and “chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk” to a prisoner’s health (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); neither negligence nor a prisoner’s difference of opinion with prison medical authorities constitutes deliberate indifference).

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.
     