1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1986

___________ Richard Louis Frenchman, Jr., *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Herbert F. Saloum, M.D., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 29, 2007 Filed: May 31, 2007

___________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Richard Frenchm an appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Herbert Saloum, M.D., was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs related to his heart condition and pacemaker. The district court based its summary judgment decision on qualified immunity. Upon de novo review, we affirm. SeeK.D. v. County of Crow Wing , 434 F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).-2- We hold that the district court properl y granted Dr. Saloum summary judgment because the facts taken in th e light most favorable to Fre nchman did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. By Frenchm an’s own admissions, he was given regular “heart and pacemaker checkups” incl uding electrocardiograph (EKG) tests; Dr. Saloum routinely read his EKG resu lts; and Dr. Saloum had him hospitalized when a problem arose. While Frenchman raises immaterial disputes regarding dates on which treatment was performed, and disagrees with the decision not to use a different device to monitor his pacemaker, Dr. Saloum did not disregard his medical needs. See Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegati ons established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualifi ed immunity.”); Logan v. Clarke , 119 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish Eighth Amendment violation by prison doctor, plaintiff must show that doctor was delib erately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs: that doctor “knew of, yet disregarded, an excessive risk to his health”); Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell , 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (to show deliberate indifference, prisoner must show more than even gross negligence; mere disagreement with treatment decisions doe s not rise to level of constitutional violation).

We further hold that the district cour t did not abuse its discretion in denying Frenchman additional time to respond to Dr. Saloum’s summary judgment motion, having already granted an ex tension once before. See Soliman v. Johanns , 412 F.3d 920, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2005) (notwithstanding pl aintiff’s argument that he had suffered extreme family hardship due to father’s une xpected death, district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying plain tiff’s motion for extension of time to file summary judgment response where court was merely enforcing existing deadlines and denied enlargement beyond extension already granted; even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 160 (2006).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________