
    Joel M. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis G. CHENAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and James Warren Baird, MD, ADC Medical Program Manager; et al., Defendants.
    No. 12-16522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 14, 2014.
    Filed April 2, 2014.
    Gerald F. Giordano, Jr., Dorris & Gior-dano PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Catherine M. Stewart, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former Arizona state prisoner Joel Hughes appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Drs. Macabuhay and Hegmann in Hughes’ action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his Hepatitis B and C. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Hughes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Drs. Maca-buhay and Hegmann knew of and disregarded ah excessive risk to Hughes’ health and safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004). At most, the evidence that Hughes presented demonstrates that the failure of Drs. Macabu-hay and Hegmann to immediately refer Hughes to a liver specialist amounted to negligence. However, “[mjere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Id. (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment.

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