Chester Marks, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Samuel Lewis, Dr. Lutz, D. Sloan, Defendants-appellees, 142 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

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.

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.

AFFIRMED.