
    Gustavo MCKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul JORIZZO; Medical Eye Center-Medford, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35083
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 25, 2016
    Gustavo McKenzie, Pro Se.
    
      Thomas F. Armosino, Jr., Attorney, Frohnmayer, Deatherage, Casey Murdock, Frohnmayer Deatherage Jamieson Moore Armosino & McGovern, PC, Brett Bau-mann, Jackson County Counsel, Medford, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo McKenzie, 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Togucki v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because McKenzie failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his primary open-angle glaucoma. See id. at 1058-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We reject as without merit McKenzie’s contentions that venue was improper and that the district court judge was biased.

We do not consider documents or facts that were not presented to the district court. 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.”).

Defendants’ requests to strike McKenzie’s opening brief and to dismiss the appeal, set forth in the answering brief, are denied.

McKenzie’s request for judicial notice, filed on July 2, 2015, is denied.

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