
    Siegfried PEDERSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve BRUNGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35444.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 21, 2013.
    Siegfried Pedersen, Hudson, CO, pro se.
    John Bodick, Assistant Attorney General, State of Alaska Attorney Generals Office, Criminal Division Central Office, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alaska state prisoner Siegfried Peder-sen 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even assuming Pedersen had a serious medical need, Ped-ersen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to respond adequately to his injured shoulder. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration because Pedersen failed to establish any ground for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for reconsideration).

Pedersen’s contentions concerning the district court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings are unpersuasive.

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