MEMORANDUM Jason McDermott appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for defendant prison medical officials on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. ' McDermott alleges that defendants violated the Eight Amendment by demonstrating deliberate indifference to his persistent constipation. Reviewing de novo and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McDermott, we conclude there is no genuine issue of material fact and affirm. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). McDermott has failed to show “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs,” as is required under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). First, although we do not discount his complaints, he has not demonstrated that his medical need — constipation—is serious because there is no evidence “that failure to treat it will result in significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)'. McDermott has not produced any evidence beyond bare allegations that his constipation rises to the level of a serious medical need.
Second, McDermott has failed to show that “[a] prison official [was] deliberately indifferent to [his] need [in that the official] kn[ew] of and disregarded] an excessive risk to inmate health.” Id. at 1082 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, the record reflects that McDermott received continual medical care and that prison medical officials attempted to address his concerns through various diagnostic tests and treatment plans. McDermott offers no support for his claim that he is constitutionally entitled to be treated with brand name, as opposed to generic, Metamucil as he demands. AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.