MEMORANDUM **

Clarence Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in connection with his dental treatment. 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 for defendant because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his dental pain. See id. at 1057. A difference in medical opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1059-60; see also Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a [section] 1983 claim.”). Moreover, a “showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060.

Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.