Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-94-1285-DFL
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, SCHRODER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Benny Velasquez, Jr. appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1238 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Because Velasquez failed to allege that any alleged delay or interference of medical treatment led to further injury, he failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Summary judgment by the district court was therefore proper.
Because summary judgment was proper, we disagree with Velasquez's contention that he was entitled to a trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Moreover, we decline to address any claim that the district court's denial of his motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion because Velasquez failed to raise the issue in his opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed waived).