22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e8,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 36-3,24:T51f,

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,