NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM RATCLIFF, No. 18-17099

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB v.

MEMORANDUM* JONATHAN E. AKANNO, Individually and Official Capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William Ratcliff 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ratcliff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); id. at 1058 (explaining “a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate indifference).

We reject as meritless Ratcliff’s contentions that the district court improperly disregarded portions of his declaration and the declarations of other prison inmates, made erroneous factual findings, and improperly viewed the evidence in granting summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-17099