NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN ANDERSON, No. 18-35185

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05110-RMP v.

MEMORANDUM* WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Kevin Anderson 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his eye condition. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Anderson leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35185