Marlor

MEMORANDUM *

Gregory Robert Marlor (“Marlor”) appeals the district court’s order granting Madison County, Idaho (“the County”) summary judgment on Marlor’s claims un *873 der the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and state negligence law. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The ADA Claim

Marlor claims the County Jail’s failure to provide him medical equipment, i.e., rubber crutch tips, violated the ADA. To set forth an ADA claim, Marlor bears the burden of establishing he was excluded from participating in the jail’s programs or activities “by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002); see also Memmer v. Marin County Courts, 169 F.3d 630, 633 (9th Cir.1999).

Inadequate medical care does not provide a basis for an ADA claim unless medical services are withheld by reason of a disability. See Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 248-49 (7th Cir.1996); McNally v. Pnson Health Servs., 46 F. Supp 2d. 49, 58-59 (D.Me.1999) (finding the plaintiff stated an ADA claim by…