
    James Wilson CALLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cesar L. SINNACO, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16640.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2011.
    James Wilson Calloway, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Paul T. Hammerness, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Firm Name: AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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 James Wilson Calloway 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Calloway did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Sinnaco knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to him. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Calloway’s motion for reconsideration because Calloway identified no proper ground for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Calloway’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Calloway’s motion to file corrections to his opening brief, filed on November 9, 2010, is granted.

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