MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

*511 The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Homer and McKamey were deliberately indifferent to Valenzuela’s bladder condition. See id. at 1066-68 (an official is “deliberately indifferent” if she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 10, 20) are granted. However, to the extent that the documents have not been filed in the district court, we do not consider them. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.