Case Name: Dyke Edward NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex ZIGA, Psychiatrist, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 13-17414
Parties: Dyke Edward NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex ZIGA, Psychiatrist, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 520–520

Head Matter:
Dyke Edward NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex ZIGA, Psychiatrist, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-17414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
Filed Oct. 21, 2014.
Dyke Edward Nelson, Atascadero, CA, pro se.
Peter Anthony Meshot, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, 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
Dyke Edward Nelson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nelson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Ziga was deliberately indifferent in treating Nelson's serious psychiatric needs. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, a difference of medical opinion, or a prisoner's difference of opinion with the physician regarding the course of treatment is not sufficient).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nelson's motion for reconsideration because Nelson failed to identify any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.