22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T525,MEMORANDUM Serafín Reyes, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by discontinuing a special diabetic diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm the judgment on any ground supported by the record. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm. Dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim was proper because Reyes failed to allege that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The district court properly dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim because Reyes failed to allege that prison officials discriminated against him or denied him the benefits of a program, service or activity on the basis of his diabetes. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455 (9th Cir.1996). Reyes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55c,

MEMORANDUM

Serafín Reyes, Jr., an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by discontinuing a special diabetic diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm the judgment on any ground supported by the record. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

Dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim was proper because Reyes failed to allege that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

The district court properly dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim because Reyes failed to allege that prison officials discriminated against him or denied him the benefits of a program, service or activity on the basis of his diabetes. See Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455 (9th Cir.1996).

Reyes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.