for which many people who are not in prison do not seek medical attention-does not by its refusal violate the Constitution”). The length of delay that is tolerable depends on the seriousness of the condition, McGowan, 612 F.3d at 640, and whether medical staff knew or wife deliberately indifferent to the serious consequences of delay. The district court here reasonably concluded that the delay in treating the minor maladies that Slater has alleged resulted from the medical staffs choice to treat other maladies first. This conclusion is sound because the medical personnel had no reason to believe that anything serious would arise from temporarily delaying treatment of a congested nose and skin condition. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th
holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference holding that mere disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed