PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in Carey Faust’s pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on Faust’s claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs; and (2) whether the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on Faust’s claim that his rights under the ADA were violated. We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1242-43 (11th Cir.2003).
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence establishes “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243. The evidence, and all reasonable inferences, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, here Faust. McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243. After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments Faust makes in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on all of Faust’s claims. AFFIRMED.