*1 Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Former Arizona state prisoner David Arenberg 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 *2 Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tariq because Arenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Tariq was deliberately indifferent to Arenberg’s rashes. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
To the extent Arenberg contends that he alleged a separate First Amendment retaliation claim, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15419
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).