Arkansas inmate Robert Heffernan, a diabetic, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that certain prison officials had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they deprived him of a full meal following his early morning insulin injection on holidays between December 2009 and May 2010. After an eviden-tiary hearing, the District Court 1 granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Heffernan appeals.

Following careful de novo review, we agree with the District Court that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Heffernan, did not establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). On each of the five holidays at issue, Hef-fernan received a sandwich and juice after his 2:00 a.m. insulin injection, he experienced low blood sugar before his next meal and was given glucogen in the infirmary, and he was monitored until his blood sugar reached a safe level. Even though on one of those occasions Heifer-nan’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 that Heffernan is no longer experiencing problems with his blood-sugar levels on holidays. See Piet-rafeso 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 his health, or that his health suffered as a result of the food”). In addition, Heffer-nan 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. See Nolan 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 Rules of Civil Procedure “for a continuance accompanied by an affidavit showing what specific facts further discovery might uncover, a district court generally does not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment on the basis of the record before it”).

*707 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and deny Heffernan’s pending motions.