Simmons

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Isaac Simmons appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Balint v. Carson City, Nev., 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

Because Simmons’ deliberate indifference claims amounted to a difference of opinion as to whether to perform surgery or to continue conservative treatment, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Drs. Hambly and *919 Sheehy. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simmons’ motion to vacate its previous order granting summary judgment to Dr. Hambly. See Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simmons’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and motion for reconsideration of that denial because of undue delay, failure to state claims against new and previously dismissed defendants, and the likelihood of prejudice to all defendants. See M/V Am. Queen v.…