Pedroza

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jose Pedroza appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when defendants first limited his authorization for a medical cane and then revoked the authorization. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Pedroza’s deliberate indifference claim because he did not present evidence that a cane was medically necessary. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (negligence does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (difference of opinion between prisoner-plaintiff and physician does not amount to deliberate indifference). It is undisputed that Pedroza did not attend follow-up medical appointments that would have determined whether or not a cane was medically necessary.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on…