
    Mario A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvaro C. TRAQUINA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed July 2, 2014.
    Mario A. Williams, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mario A. Wiliams 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. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.2013) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused any delay in scheduling his back surgery. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”). Moreover, to the extent that defendants took any action in connection with Williams’s back surgery, Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health; a mere difference in opinion concerning the course of treatment is insufficient).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     