
    Abdullah MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. CURRY, Supervisor; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-16060.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    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.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       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.
     