
    Marc Charles DAWSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. S. LATHAM; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-17255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
    Marc Charles Dawson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Harry T. Gower, III, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marc Charles Dawson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his 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 Dawson failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants’ treatment of his symptoms after he was inadvertently administered one dose of unknown medication constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallelt v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (where a prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he must show that the delay led to further injury).

Dawson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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