MacLennan

MEMORANDUM ***

Herman T. Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to remove a glass fragment from his scalp. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because Johnson has shown, at most, that he disagrees with the opinions of numerous medical professionals about what treatment he should receive. Consequently, he did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court properly found no violation of Johnson’s due process rights. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir.1996). The district court properly found no violation of Johnson’s First Amendment rights. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th…