With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994). The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Stewart’s claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his complaint of back pain, and his request for photochromatic glasses, because Stewart’s evidence merely demonstrated a difference in opinion between himself and the prison medical staff as to the appropriate course of treatment. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). To the extent Stewart alleged that charging him for the prescription sun glasses evidenced deliberate indifference, summary judgment was proper because it is undisputed that Stewart received the tinted glasses he requested. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Com’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly granted summary

A: holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker
B: holding frequent transfers did not amount to denial of medical care
C: holding that where the victim of a tortfeasor receives gratuitous medical services from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor the value of the gratuitous medical services may not be deducted from the verdict for overall medical care received
D: holding that charging fees for medical services did not violate the eighth amendment where prisoner did not allege denial of medical care
D.