Gabriel Mills appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment for defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which Mills sought to challenge his commitment to the Arkansas State Hospital (ASH) under the Arkansas Act 911 Program and alleged that he received inadequate treatment for a medical condition while he was a patient at ASH and later at another Act 911 Program facility. We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants. See Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (de novo review). First, Mills’s challenge to his commitment is not properly brought in this section 1983 action, cf. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (state prisoner’s challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be brought through habeas corpus after exhaustion of state remedies); and second, the medical records show that Mills received reasonable testing and medication for his medical complaints, see Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent where they treated prisoner on numerous occasions and offered sensible medication and treatment); Kayser v. Caspari, 16 F.3d 280, 281 (8th Cir. 1994) (plaintiffs self-diagnosis alone will not suffice to establish serious medical condition); Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997) (failure to establish “the detrimental effect of delay in treatment precludes a claim of deliberate indifference”).

The judgment is affirmed.