Case Name: Terry Lee PAPENFUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-10
Citations: 259 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: No. 06-35920
Parties: Terry Lee PAPENFUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 6–6

Head Matter:
Terry Lee PAPENFUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-35920.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
Terry Lee Papenfus, Ontario, OR, pro se.
Leonard W. Williamson, Esq., Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terry Lee Papenfus, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Papenfus failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his back condition. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (explaining that a difference in opinion regarding the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to medical needs).
Papenfus's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.