¶2 Darryl Lee Goldstein, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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), and we affirm.
¶3 The district court properly granted summary judgment because Goldstein failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and condition. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prioner must show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
¶4 AFFIRMED.