MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mario A. Wiliams 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. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused any delay in scheduling his back surgery. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”). Moreover, to the extent that defendants took any action in connection with Williams’s back surgery, Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health; a mere difference in opinion concerning the course of treatment is insufficient).

AFFIRMED.