
    Jeremy GAUTHIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. STILES, Does 1-7, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-56096.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
    Jeremy Gauthier, pro se.
    Heidi Teresa Salerno, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, 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

Jeremy Gauthier, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by various prison medical personnel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gauthier’s action because neither his disagreement with the dosage or type of pain medicine administered after his nose surgery, nor his dissatisfaction with the denial of prescription strength pain medicine for two days, constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Toguehi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (difference in opinion between an inmate and medical personnel insufficient to constitute indifference to medical needs); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir.1998) (alleged delays in administering pain medication, without more, do not constitute deliberate indifference).

The district court also properly dismissed Gauthier’s action with prejudice because the defects in his claim could not be cured by amendment. See McKesson HBOC v. New York State Common Ret. Fund, 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir.2003).

Gauthier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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