Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, Muhammad's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Abdullah Muhammad, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Michael W. Pott, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sheri Marie Buzard, Esq., Sacramento City Attorney's Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants--Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-02369-JKS.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Abdullah Muhammad, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have
Page 22.
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Muhammad's claim that the defendants improperly discontinued his insulin injections because mere disagreement between a prisoner-patient and prison medical personnel over the course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989).
Muhammad's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.