Case Name: Craig F. WEIGHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 09-35026
Parties: Craig F. WEIGHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.