
    Donald R. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald POM PAN, M.D. (Orthopedic Surgeon); et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15961.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 18, 2018.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Donald R. Walker, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Teresa Morimoto, Esquire, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, 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

California state prisoner Donald R. Walker 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 Walker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent when they denied him knee replacement surgery after he had received arthroscopic surgery to repair his knee. 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 prisoner 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.
     