
    Darrell WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN, Nurse, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-16661
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Darrell Williams, Pro Se
    Michael A, Terhorst, Attorney, Beeson Terhorst, LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte 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 sua sponte because Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971-72 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2010)(en banc); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “ ‘ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference’ ” (citation omitted)); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (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 or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     