
    Steven VLASICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jesus JUAREZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
    Steven Vlasich, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Ovidio Oviedo, Jr., Robert D. Tookoian, Oviedo Tookoian LLP, Fresno, CA, Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacra-mentó,. CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decisiori without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Steven Vlasich 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 Vlasich failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in discontinuing his Ritalin medication. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference absent a showing that the course of treatment prescribed was medically unacceptable).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vlasich’s motion to compel Dr. Fishback to produce copies of Vlasich’s letters because there was no showing that the denial of the motion resulted in actual and substantial prejudice. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (district court’s “broad discretion ... to permit or deny discovery ... will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject Vlasich’s contention that the district court erred by denying his motion for copies and granting him leave to file only one copy of his opposition without proof of service.

We do not consider on appeal materials that were not before the district court.

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