FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 18 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


HOWARD COCHRAN,                                  No. 13-15667

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01365-RCB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
SUDHA RAO,

               Defendant - Appellee.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                   Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 12, 2014**

Before:        McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Arizona state prisoner Howard Cochran 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 in the treatment of pain in his hand. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Los Angeles, 

, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cochran

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Rao knew

of or disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm in denying, on a single

occasion, Cochran’s request for pain medication, or whether her chosen course of

treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. See Jett v. Penner,

, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard for deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs, and explaining that negligence and isolated

events do not constitute deliberate indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 

,

332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate

indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendant’s chosen course of treatment

was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the

prisoner’s health); see also Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 

,

1241-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (the deliberate indifference standard applies to pretrial

detainees because pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights are comparable

to prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights).

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                    13-15667