NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE WASHINGTON, No. 18-16910

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00725-DAD-

BAM

v.

P. ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner; C. MEMORANDUM*

SISODIA, Physicians Assistant,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

N. HOLLAND,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jesse Washington, a California 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 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Washington

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Rouch

and Sisodia were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and flat feet condition.

See id. at 1057-60 (explaining 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)).

Defendants’ motion to strike new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11)

is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2