Case ID: f-appx_373/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Craig F. WEIGHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    Craig F. Weighall, Monroe, WA, pro se.
    Andrea Vingo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Craig F. Weighall 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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Weighall did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ chosen course of treatment of his amputation site was medically unacceptable. See id. at 1058 (holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.