Jamison

MEMORANDUM **

April Jamison appeals the grant of summary judgment for defendant prison offi *876 ciáis in her § 1983 suit claiming deliberate indifference to her medical needs relating to a miscarriage she suffered in jail. Jamison argues the district court erred: (1) in granting summary judgment for defendants; (2) in denying her request for appointment of counsel; (3) in denying her request for a court-appointed medical expert; and (4) in refusing to consider medical texts submitted by Jamison in ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. As the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recite it in full here.

Jamison first argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants Stedtfeld, Putnam, Willis, Nielson, and Bannock County. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). As to defendants Stedtfeld and Putnam, even if Jamison could show that the condition of being two or three months pregnant were “sufficiently serious” in itself to form the basis of…