
    James Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tabbaa MUMTAZ, Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 26, 2013.
    James Edward Williams, Delano, CA, pro se.
    John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Teresa Morimoto, Esquire, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, William David Walker, Esquire, Craddick, Candland & Conti, San Ramon, 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 James Edwards Williams 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 Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs of deliberate indifference claim); Toguchi 391 F.3d at 1059-1060 (neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (§ 1983 does not provide a cause of action for alleged violations of state law).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining the reasons for not considering new arguments on appeal, i.e., that doing so would deprive the court of appeals “of a fully developed factual record” and “the benefit of the district court’s prior analysis”).

Williams’s pending motions are denied.

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