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:T4fd,facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding his exposure to gadolinium during a magnetic resonance imaging scan or the denial of a urinalysis years later. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057- 60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health). The district court properly dismissed Hamilton’s claims against defendants Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical Inc. and McKesson Pharmaceuticals Corp. because Hamilton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted under color of state law. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092-96 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a § 1983 plaintiff must show the defendant “acted under color of state law” and the tests to determine state action; the central question is whether the alleged constitutional violation is fairly attributable to the government). 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. 2 20-1728724:T559,

facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted with deliberate indifference

regarding his exposure to gadolinium during a magnetic resonance imaging scan or

the denial of a urinalysis years later. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-

60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she

knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).

The district court properly dismissed Hamilton’s claims against defendants

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical Inc. and McKesson Pharmaceuticals Corp.

because Hamilton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants

acted under color of state law. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092-96 (9th

Cir. 2003) (explaining that a § 1983 plaintiff must show the defendant “acted under

color of state law” and the tests to determine state action; the central question is

whether the alleged constitutional violation is fairly attributable to the

government).

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.

2 20-17287