
    Anthony OLIVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1944.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2013.
    
    Decided Feb. 22, 2013.
    Anthony Olive, Dixon, IL, pro se.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    
   Order

Last fall we held that Anthony Olive stated a claim for relief under the eighth amendment by alleging that a physician offered him only ibuprofen to treat his pain, despite knowing that this drug would aggravate his peptic ulcer. We remanded for further proceedings. Olive v. Wexford Corp., 494 Fed.Appx. 671 (7th Cir.2012) (nonprecedential disposition).

The current appeal arises from Olive’s experience in a different prison. Here Olive initially was offered a different ibuprofen-containing drug to control his pain; when he rejected it because of its potential side effects, the medical staff diagnosed his knee condition using x-rays and administered physical therapy and steroid injections; they also gave Olive a low-bunk permit. The district judge concluded that this made a material difference and dismissed this second suit.

Olive contends that the physicians should have sent him for an MRI scan to get better information and should have given him a knee brace instead of, or in addition to, the steroid shots. But as we concluded in Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864 (7th Cir.2013), the Constitution does not require physicians to use MRI scans when they conclude, in the exercise of professional judgment, that x-rays suffice for diagnosis. Olive’s own complaint discloses a serious effort at diagnosis and treatment and shows that the defendants were not indifferent to his condition. If they erred, that is a matter for malpractice litigation under state law, not for a constitutional claim. The judgment dismissing this suit on the pleadings is affirmed.  