NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRAD PATRICK DONOHUE, No. 18-35784 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00788-MC v. MEMORANDUM* VARGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Former Oregon state prisoner Brad Patrick Donohue 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

* 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).

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Donohue failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted in conscious disregard to Donohue’s shoulder injuries or that any delay in Donohue’s treatment resulted in significant injury. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference claim based on delay of medical treatment must show that the delay led to significant injury).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35784