22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T519,MEMORANDUM William M. Endres, a California state prisoner, 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.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Endres failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delay he experienced in receiving surgery for his benign brain tumor led to increased suffering or further injury. See id. at 1058-59 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (to establish deliberate indifference based on a delay in treatment, there must be proof that it resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075 , 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T546,

MEMORANDUM

William M. Endres, a California state prisoner, 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.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Endres failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delay he experienced in receiving surgery for his benign brain tumor led to increased suffering or further injury. See id. at 1058-59 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (to establish deliberate indifference based on a delay in treatment, there must be proof that it resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075 , 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.