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:T438,MEMORANDUM Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Rowe was deliberately indifferent 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 on Nickolich’s Eighth Amendment claim because Nickolich failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rowe’s failure to diagnose diabetes constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety; a difference of medical opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). Nickolich’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:T46a,

MEMORANDUM

Dushan Stephan Nickolich, II, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Rowe was deliberately indifferent 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 on Nickolich’s Eighth Amendment claim because Nickolich failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rowe’s failure to diagnose diabetes constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety; a difference of medical opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Nickolich’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.