Carlos ESPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO.; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 684 F. App'x 634

MEMORANDUM Carlos Espino appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims arising from his medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. We do not consider the merits of the district court’s dismissal of Espino’s action because Espino does not raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district court’s dismissal of any claim alleged in his operative complaint.

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (we do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Ajrguments not’ raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Appellees’ motions for

summary affir-mance (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14) are denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.