Hoffman

MEMORANDUM **

William O. Nelson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to either order or perform follow-up surgery to treat pre-existing injuries. We have jurisdiction under 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 district court properly found that D’Amico was entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Nelson, did not show that D’Amico violated Nelson’s constitutional rights by delaying or hindering Nelson’s medical treatment. See Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2002); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.1992) (holding summary judgment proper where nothing in the record to demonstrates defendants delayed or hindered plaintiffs medical treatment), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997); see also Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that a difference of opinion regarding medical…