142 F3d 444 Marks v. Lewis D

142 F.3d 444

Chester MARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Samuel LEWIS, Dr. Lutz, D. Sloan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-15872.
D.C. No. Civ-94-2507-PHX-EHC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1998.**
Decided April 29, 1998.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BRUNETTI, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM*

2

Arizona state prisoner Chester Marks appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in Marks' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Marks alleged that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to provide him with replacement contact lenses and "Total" contact cleaning solution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, see Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

3

We reject Marks' contention that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for defendants because Marks failed to set forth any evidence to demonstrate that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989). Defendants offered Marks an alternative course of treatment, but he refused their offer and has failed to demonstrate that this treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 584, 136 L.Ed.2d 514 (1996). Moreover, the district court properly found that defendants were not the actual and proximate cause of Marks' eye problems. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, summary judgment was proper. See Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242.

4

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3