
    John Wayne WARDEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nayelie BARRIGAN, CRN, Certified Registered Nurse at ADOC Yuma, Cocopah Medical Unit; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 31, 2014.
    John Wayne Warden, Jr., Globe, AZ, pro se.
    Michael J. Hrnieek, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former Arizona state prisoner John Wayne Warden, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s 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. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Warden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent by denying or delaying postoperative treatment for his left eye, or by interfering with his ability to receive postoperative treatment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir.2002) (delay of medical treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury).

We reject Warden’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in considering defendants’ evidence.

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