Craig F. Weighall v. DOUG WADDINGTON, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG F. WEIGHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOUG WADDINGTON, Superintendent,
Stafford Creek Corrections Center; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35026
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01675-RSM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 09-35026 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --