22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T412,MEMORANDUM Donald Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with safe showering facilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding shower safety and the provision of shower mats. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.”). Williams’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T444,

MEMORANDUM

Donald Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with safe showering facilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding shower safety and the provision of shower mats. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health and safety); id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.”).

Williams’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.