Samuel Windham, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations related to defendants’ placement of metal restraints on his burn-damaged wrists and ankles, his transfer from one prison to another and his medical treatment at the new prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Windham’s deliberate indifference claims because he fai ) (<HOLDING>). Because Windham did not establish that his
holding that placement in disciplinary segregation does not implicate a liberty interest because it falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence holding that a response to a foia request falls within the scope of  3730e4as administrative  report provision holding that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is not within the range of conditions of confinement to which a prison sentence subjects an individual recognizing that the ninth circuit explicitly has found that administrative segregation falls within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence recognizing that determination of appropriate sentence to be imposed should ordinarily be determined by the trial court on remand rather than at the appellate level