MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056,1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Adams’s deliberate indifference claims because Adams alleges, at most, differences of opinion between himself and the prison health care staff, and among the prisons’ health care staff, about the appropriate course of treatment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (differences of opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court properly dismissed Adams’s due process claim based on defendants’ allegedly improper processing and *321 disposition of his grievances because he has no due process right to the handling of grievances in any particular manner. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (order).

AFFIRMED.