
    Jose Luis MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOREL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15809.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2012.
    Jose Luis Morales, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Christopher Michael Young, Esquire, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, Michael William Morrison, Janssen Malloy Needham Morrison Reinholtsen, et al., LLP, Eureka, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Morales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent 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 for defendants Pompan, Risenhoover, and Duncan because Morales failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ treatment of Morales’s right knee constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (deliberate indifference occurs when the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health and safety; a mere disagreement between a prisoner and medical personnel over the proper course of treatment fails to establish deliberate indifference). Morales does not challenge the dismissal of the other defendants named in his original complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales’s motion for appointment of counsel because Morales failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

. Morales’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The district court did not mention Morales’s state law claim in the order granting summary judgment. We deem the state law claims to have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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