Case Name: Mario Timmothy ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-27
Citations: 446 F. App'x 33
Docket Number: No. 10-17016
Parties: Mario Timmothy ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 33–33

Head Matter:
Mario Timmothy ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 27, 2011.
Mario Timmothy Ortega, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Timmothy Ortega, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ortega's amended complaint because his allegations, at most, showed a difference of opinion regarding the treatment of his eye. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (explaining that a difference of opinion about medical care is "insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference").
Ortega's 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.