
    Juan ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zahed AHMED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15689.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 4, 2016.
    Juan Espinoza, pro se.
    Troy B. Overton, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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 Juan Espinoza 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. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Espinoza failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Ahmed was deliberately indifferent to Espinoza’s hemorrhoid condition. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Espinoza’s request for this court to investigate whether defendant prescribed stool softeners, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

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