Case Information
*1 Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Matthew Allen Woods appeals pro se from the district *2 cou rt’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 on Woods’s deliberate indifference claim against defendant Herrick because Woods failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Herrick was deliberately indifferent to Woods’ s chronic psoriasis. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Woods’ s deliberate indifference claim against defendant Correct Care Solutions because Woods failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any policy or custom of Correct Care Solutions caused him to suffer a constitutional injury. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles , 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc. , 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the entity acted under color of state law and the constitutional violation was caused by *3 the entity’s official policy or custom).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Woods ’ s motion to compel production of medical records (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).