Juan Portillo v. Dave Khatri

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Juan A. Portillo appeals pro se from the district court’s *691 summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 Portillo did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Portillo while treating his kidney stones. See id. at 1057-58 (holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Portillo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.