MEMORANDUM ***

Idaho state prisoner Timothy Allan Dunlap appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant deprived him of food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunlap failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether being provided two meals on weekend days constituted a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (two-part showing required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, including an objective showing that there was a sufficiently serious deprivation of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.