NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOWARD LEE WHITE, No. 18-16899 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00573-MMD- WGC v. ROMEO ARANAS; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees, and ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 7, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Howard Lee White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

* 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). court’s summary judgment in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because White failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent or negligent to White’s dietary needs. 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); see also LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); DeBoer v. Senior Bridges of Sparks Family Hosp., 282 P.3d 727, 732 (Nev. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a traditional negligence claim under Nevada law).

White’s motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

AFFIRMED.