
    Nathan Kevin TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ROHRER, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16558.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 8, 2014.
    Nathan Kevin Turner, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Scott John Feudale, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, 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 Nathan Kevin Turner 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 Turner faded to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant consciously disregarded a serious risk to Turner’s health related to his knee and shoulder injuries by failing to classify his medical needs as “urgent” or not pursuing a more aggressive course of treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if “he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Toguchi 391 F.3d at 1058 (prisoner’s difference of opinion with physician regarding course of treatment is not sufficient; rather, to show deliberate indifference, prisoner must establish that the chosen course of treatment “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir.1991) (“[A] party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony.”).

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