With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not

A: holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs
B: holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation
C: holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference
D: holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference
C.