NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN VLASICH, No. 19-15630

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00326-LJO-EPG

v.

MEMORANDUM*

C. NAREDDY, Dr.; O. BEREGOVSKAYA,

Dr.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

C. MCCABE, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Steven Vlasich appeals pro se from the district

* 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). court’s judgment following a jury verdict 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 for substantial evidence the sufficiency of the

evidence to support a jury verdict. Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010,

1021 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

We sustain the jury verdict because it is supported by substantial evidence.

See id. (“A jury’s verdict must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence,

which is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion, even if it is also

possible to draw a contrary conclusion.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

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.

2 19-15630