MEMORANDUM ***

Mario Timmothy Ortega, 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. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ortega’s amended complaint because his allegations, at most, showed a difference of opinion regarding the treatment of his eye. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a difference of opinion about medical care is “insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference”).

Ortega’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.