Ferdinand Reynolds v. David Nguyen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: 22-55176
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERDINAND REYNOLDS, No. 22-55176

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01477-MWF-JPR v.

DAVID NGUYEN, Medical Doctor - MEMORANDUM* Corcoran State Prison, Individual; and official capacity,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

MICHELLE WOFFORD, Captain; Individual; and official capacity; NATE WILCOX, Correctional Counselor III Former Litigation Officer, Individual; and official capacity; MERIAM HA, Medical Doctor's Assistant, Individual; and official capacity; AMIR RAMADAN, Medical Doctor - Corcoran State Prison, Individual; and official capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted February 1, 2024 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ferdinand Reynolds appeals pro se the district

court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of his Eighth

Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Nguyen on

Reynolds’ medical deliberate indifference claim because Dr. Nguyen promptly

treated Reynolds ear infection by providing medicated ear drops and referring

Reynolds to an audiologist. Reynolds provided no evidence that this treatment was

medically unacceptable under the circumstances, or that it was chosen in conscious

disregard of an excessive risk to Reynolds’ health. See id. at 1058.

We do not reach Reynolds’ argument that he exhausted his claims fully

before he filed his complaint, because the district court did not grant summary

judgment on that basis. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. & N.

Idaho v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 946 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir.

2020) (“In general, an appellate court does not decide issues that the trial court did

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 not decide.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations made for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.