
    Melinda Gabriella VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arlene MCKAMEY, Nurse Practitioner; Eliza Homer, Assistant Facility Health Administrator at Corizon—Eyman, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 16-16492
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 18, 2017
    Melinda Gabriélla Valenzuela, Pro Se
    Joseph Scott Conlon, Renaud Cook Dru-ry Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Homer and McKamey were deliberately indifferent to Valenzuela’s bladder condition. See id. at 1066-68 (an official is “deliberately indifferent” if she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 10, 20) are granted. However, to the extent that the documents have not been filed in the district court, we do not consider them. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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