Kenneth Wayne Menard, Sr., Texas prisoner # 724683, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding them protected by qualified immunity from his civil rights suit. Menard alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they did not provide adequate treatment for his injured elbow. We AFFIRM.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Hill v. Caroll Cnty., Miss., 587 F.3d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 2009). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.CivP. 56(a).

“Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., Tex., 560 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). We consider “whether, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right.” Id. at 410 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)).

The record shows that the defendants did not act with indifference to Menard’s serious medical needs. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Menard was seen by medical personnel and given pain medication and palliative treatment. X-rays were ordered. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Me-nard disagrees with his treatment, but that is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Menard has not shown that the defendants violated a constitutional right. Therefore, he fails to show that the defendants were not entitled *353 to qualified immunity. See Lytle, 560 F.3d at 410.

As Menard has not shown exceptional circumstances, we reject his request for appointment of counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). His motion to supplement the record is also denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.