
    Jesus ESTEVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15758.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Jesus Estevez, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Lakeysia Rene Beene, Christina Carroll, Martha M. Stringer, Kathleen Jane Williams, Matthew Ross Wilson, Esquire, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jesus Estevez 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Estevez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent regarding any denial, delay, or interference with Estevez’s ability to receive back surgery or ongoing pain management. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).

We reject Estevez’s contentions that the district court erred in its denial of Este-vez’s motion for injunctive relief, denial of judicial notice of his state court habeas proceeding, or application of the deliberate indifference standard.

Estevez’s motion for oral argument is denied.

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