disagreement with Dr. Sears’ professional judgment. But lacking any evidence that the dentist’s treatment plan was obviously inadequate, see Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441-42 (7th Cir.2010), or a substantial departure from standard practice, see Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2010), Hoeft cannot make out a claim of deliberate indifference. As for his claim against Hasten, Hoeft insists that exposing prisoners to loud noises does constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Compare Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996) (reversing summary judgment in favor of official who subjected prisoner to constant “ ‘screaming, wailing, crying, singing and yelling’ ” by other inmates), with Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574,-1577 n. 2,1580 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). But he has no answer to the district court’s
holding that a waiver of counsel once made and not retracted is operative throughout the proceedings holding that the fact that nearly all music cassettes censored by prison authorities was afrieanamerican rap music failed to demonstrate that the purpose of the ban was to discriminate against africanamerican inmates holding that evidence of multiple interrogations and 24hour detention did not compel finding of persecution holding that music and loud talking broadcast over prison intercom throughout 24hour period did not offend contemporary standards of deeency holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population