
    Ivan Vernord CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phuc T. LAM, Dr., Defendant-Appellee, J. CHUDY, et al., Defendants.
    No. 12-15900.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2013.
    Ivan Vernord Cleveland, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Martin Kosla, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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 Ivan Vernord Cleveland appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and other claims. 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 on Cleveland’s deliberate indifference claim because, even assuming that his coughing disorder and lipomas constituted serious medical conditions, Cleveland failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lam consciously disregarded any risk they posed to Cleveland’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-35, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (setting forth elements of deliberate indifference); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (explaining that neither prisoner’s difference of opinion with prison medical authorities regarding treatment, nor negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, gives rise to a § 1983 claim).

Cleveland’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to review all the evidence, and defendant Lam’s alleged attempts to intimidate him during this litigation, are unpersuasive.

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