Ford

MEMORANDUM **

California prisoner Raymond Byron Ford appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ford’s deliberate indifference claim against his prison doctor, because Ford failed to show anything more than a difference of medical opinion, which does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,1130 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a determination of qualified immunity on summary judgment. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988). Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ford’s motion for further discovery because he failed to demonstrate that additional discovery would produce facts sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223 , 1235 (9th…