Larry LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chief Mike POWELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 507 F. App'x 656

MEMORANDUM Former Washington state prisoner Larry Lloyd appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm. The district court properly granted

summary judgment on the retaliation claim because Lloyd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ housing decisions were based on a retaliatory motive rather than legitimate correctional goals. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (plaintiff must show allegedly retaliatory action did not advance legitimate correctional goals). The district court properly granted

summary judgment on the medical deliberate indifference claim because, even assuming that Lloyd had a serious medical condition, Lloyd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants disregarded an excessive. risk to his health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (prison officials act with, deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety, and a mere difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course-of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Nelson v. Pima Cmty.

Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996) (“[M]ere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of

summary judgment.”). The district court-did not abuse its discretion by denying Lloyd’s request to compel additional discovery or his request to continue defendants’

summary judgment motion until Lloyd received additional discovery because Lloyd failed to show.how the additional discovery was necessary to defeat

summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth standard of review and requirements under former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (noting the trial court’s broad discretion in discovery matters). Lloyd’s contentions that the district court failed to review the complete record and resolved factual disputes are unsupported by the record. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.