
    Michael DOKTOREZTK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. MORALES, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-55657.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
    Michael Doktoreztk, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendani>-Appellee.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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 Michael Dokto-reztk appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in connection with an assault by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Doktoreztk failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Morales knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (claim of deliberate indifference requires showing that “the officer [knew] of and disregarded] an excessive risk to inmate ... safety”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider a declaration by another inmate because the inmate lacked personal knowledge of the events at issue. See Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 416, 419 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and explaining that a court may consider declarations for purposes of summary judgment only if they are made on personal knowl-

edge and sets out facts that would be admissible in evidence).

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