Dixon
Dixon v. Howe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California prisoner Daniel Steve Dixon appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The undisputed facts establish that defendants responded to Dixon’s request for medical treatment by promptly sched *275 uling him for a doctor’s appointment, referring him to a cardiologist for further evaluation, and performing surgery to replace a defective aortic valve. The district court therefore properly concluded that Dixon’s showing of a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th ' Cir.1996).
Dixon’s contention that Dr. Flohr interfered with his medical treatment by referring him to another cardiologist for a second opinion after Dr. Dassah recommended cardiac catheterization also amounts only to a difference in opinion about the proper course of treatment. See id.