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:T523,MEMORANDUM Samuel D. Martin, a Washington 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 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 Martin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chugh’s failure to order an x-ray “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058 (explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Martin also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s denial of his grievance amounted to deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety). Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T555,

MEMORANDUM

Samuel D. Martin, a Washington 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 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 Martin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chugh’s failure to order an x-ray “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058 (explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Martin also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s denial of his grievance amounted to deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety).

Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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