Case Name: Leroy WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve RITTER, Chief Medical Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-30
Citations: 372 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 08-55640
Parties: Leroy WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve RITTER, Chief Medical Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 780–780

Head Matter:
Leroy WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve RITTER, Chief Medical Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55640.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 30, 2010.
Leroy Willis, Jr., San Diego, CA, pro se.
Jason P. Tortorici, Esquire, Daniels Fine Israel Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
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
Leroy Willis, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Willis's deliberate indifference claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether treatment Willis received was medically unacceptable. See id. at 242 (recognizing that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Willis's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Willis's motion requesting a settlement conference is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.