Stewart

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jarey Stewart appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review summary judgment de novo. 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 that charging…