
    Gregory GOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Behroz HAMKAR, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15796.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 2, 2016.
    Gregory Goods, pro se.
    Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. .
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Goods, 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 serious medical needs and retaliation for filing grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 ÍJ.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and affirm. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goods’s deliberate indifference claim because Goods failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his knee injury. See id. at 1057-60 (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, negligence, or a 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) (where the prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led to further injury); 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)).

We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993).

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