
    Darryl Lee GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAYLOR, Dr., Chief Medical Officer, San Quentin; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Darryl Lee Goldstein, Redwood City, CA, pro se.
    Matthew Marvin Grigg, Nancy E. Hud-gins, Maya Pri-Tal, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Martin H. Dodd, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Cro-ley Maier LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kristina Marie Hector, Office of the Receiver, Sacramento, CA, Ronald Paul Goldman, Robert V. Good, Esquire, the Goldman Law Firm, Tiburón, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darryl Lee Goldstein, 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Goldstein failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and condition. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prioner 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).

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