
    Gladger ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angel ORTIZ; Matthew Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-56662.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
    Gladger Ross, pro se.
    Richard M. Park, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). .
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former federal prisoner Gladger Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ross failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his wrist fracture. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”).

We do not consider the contentions in the reply brief concerning Dr. Redix’s statements to Ross after his wrist surgery or any other contention that was not presented to the district court. See United States, v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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