MEMORANDUM **
Montana prisoner Frank Pickle appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the Montana Department of Corrections (“MDC”) officials in this action. We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the MDC officials on Pickles deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). The undisputed evidence shows that the MDC officials’ decisions regarding surgeries and medications were medically acceptable under the circumstances and not chosen in conscious disregard of a risk to his health. Pickles personal disagreement with those medical decisions does not amount to evidence of deliberate indifference. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment in favor of the MDC officials on Pickles access to the courts claim under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348–49, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2178–79, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). The record lacks evidence indicating that any of the MDC officials’ alleged actions impeded Pickles ability to litigate this or any other action. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–14, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2186, 153 L. Ed. 2d 413 (2002).
We decline to review Pickles sexual assault and harassment claims because he did not properly raise them in the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
In light of our disposition, we deny Pickles pending motions.
AFFIRMED.