Daniel J. Scott appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of judgment following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no error in the district court’s conclusion that the care provided to Mr. Scott by defendant Mary Benson, ARNP, before September 6, 2010, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See Smith v. AS Am., Inc., 829 F.3d 616, 622 (8th Cir. 2016) (if evidence could lead to two plausible conclusions, district court’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 915 (8th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference must be measured by defendant’s knowledge at time in question, not by perfect vision of hindsight); Senty- *626 Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference is higher standard than gross negligence). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and the motion to withdraw filed by Mr. Scott’s appointed counsel is denied as moot.