In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas prisoner Scott Scanlon contests the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Scanlon claims that defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment through their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and requests transfer to “an appropriate medical facility.”

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this case because Scanlon showed neither a threat of irreparable harm nor a probability of success on the merits. The record reflects that Scanlon is receiving ongoing medical care, and that he merely disagrees with defendant medical providers’ diagnoses and treatment. See Bandog, Inc. v. Jack’s Tire & Oil, Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review); Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1990) (mere disagreement with course of treatment does not state constitutional claim for deliberate indifference); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (factors to consider in deciding whether to grant preliminary injunction).

Accordingly, we affirm.