Oh

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Edwardo De-santiago appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indiffer ence to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to complete service in a timely manner, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Marquez because Desantiago failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Marquez acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in her treatment of Desantiago’s excess ear wax. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth test for “deliberate indifference to a serious medical need” under the Eighth Amendment).

To the extent that Desantiago challenges the denial of his motion for appointment of a medical expert for a physical examination, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Desantiago failed…