## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-3618

___________ Robert R. Heffernan, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Grant Harris, Deputy Director, ADC; * Curtis Meinzer, Assistant Warden , * [UNPUBLISHED] Varner Unit, ADC; Yolanda Clark, * Food Production Manager, II, Varner * Unit, ADC, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 27, 2011 Filed: June 30, 2011

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Robert Heffernan, a diabetic, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that certain prison officials had b een deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they deprived him of a full meal following his early morning insulin injection on holidays betweenDecember 2009 and May 2010. After an1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adop ting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magi strate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- evidentiary hearing, the District Court 1 granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Heffernan appeals.
Following careful de novo review, we agr ee with the District Court that the evidence, viewed in the light most favor able to Heffernan, did not establish that defendants acted with delib erate indifference. SeeRandle v. Parker , 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). On each of the five holiday s at issue, Heffernan received a sandwich and juice after his 2:00 a. m. insulin injection, he experienced low blood sugar before his next m eal and was given glucogen in the infirmary, and he was monitored until his blood sugar reached a sa fe level. Even though on one of those occasions Heffernan’s blood-sugar level was so low that he was incoherent for a period of time, at no time did defendants deviate from his prescribed dietary plan, and the policy was ultimately changed so th at Heffernan is no longer experiencing problems with his blood-sugar levels on holidays. SeePietrafeso v. Lawrence County, S.D. , 452 F.3d 978, 982–83 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining what constitutes deliberate indifference in the prison setting); Wishon v. Gammon , 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that prisoners have a right to adequate nutrition and that failure to provide adequate nutrition may qualify as deliberate indifference, but the prisoner must show "that the food he was served was nutritionally inadequate or prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger to hi s health, or that his health suffered as a result of the food"). In addition, Heffernan did not request additional discovery before the adverse decision, and he has not indicated how additional discovery might have established liability on the part of the named defendants. SeeNolan v. Thompson , 521 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining that in the absence of a motion under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure "for a continuance accompanied by an affidavit showing what specific facts further discovery might-3- uncover, a district court ge nerally does not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment on the basis of the record before it").
Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t and deny Heffernan’s pending motions.

______________________________