MEMORANDUM **
Devin Andrich appeals the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the county defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee dental care claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper for the county defendants. Andrich failed to establish that the defendants acted with objective deliberate indifference to serious dental needs or put Andrich at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm. See id. at 1124-25 (setting forth the elements of a Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee medical care claim). This case is not like Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), where the prison continued to deny care for severe, emergency dental problems while the inmate experienced severe pain. At most, Andrich established a difference of opinion regarding his dental care. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125 (requiring “something akin to reckless disregard”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a difference of opinion regarding treatment does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.