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:T49c,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner William Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights because Gonzalez failed to allege facts suggesting that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[Deliberate indifference” is evidenced only when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”). We do not consider Gonzalez’s claims not adequately raised on appeal. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 , 1217 (9th Cir.1997). Gonzalez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4d3,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner William Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights because Gonzalez failed to allege facts suggesting that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[Deliberate indifference” is evidenced only when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”).

We do not consider Gonzalez’s claims not adequately raised on appeal. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211 , 1217 (9th Cir.1997).

Gonzalez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.