Jose Luis MORALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOREL, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 469 F. App'x 587

MEMORANDUM Jose Luis Morales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent 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 for defendants Pompan, Risenhoover, and Duncan because Morales failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ treatment of Morales’s right knee constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (deliberate indifference occurs when the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health and safety; a mere disagreement between a prisoner and medical personnel over the proper course of treatment fails to establish deliberate indifference). Morales does not challenge the dismissal of the other defendants named in his original complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales’s motion for appointment of counsel because Morales failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement). . Morales’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. The district court did not mention Morales’s state law claim in the order granting

summary judgment. We deem the state law claims to have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.