MEMORANDUM**

John F. Herron, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action without prejudice for failure to state a claim.1 Herron contends that he was seriously injured during transportation to another prison facility and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp. 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 3217 (1990), and affirm.

Prison personnel violate the eighth amendment if they are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986). The indifference to medical needs must be substantial; inadequate treatment due to negligence or inadvertence, or differences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Shields v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d 409, 410 (9th Cir.1971). While poor medical treatment will at a certain point rise to the level of a constitutional violation, mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not suffice. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990). Mere delay in treatment, without more, does not constitute an eighth amendment violation. Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam).

Herron alleges he should not have been flown to the Pima County jail because of his high blood pressure and heart condition. As a result of this flight, Herron alleges he suffered from headaches, severe nose bleeds, dizziness, numbness in his left arm, and severe chest pains. He also claims he was denied medication which was prescribed to him by an outside physician. It is undisputed, however, that Herron was told by medical personnel at Pima County prison that he had to be seen by a physician before receiving any medication for his heart condition. Further, he was prescribed medication for his high blood pressure and given aspirin for his pain. He was also given a nasal spray for his nose bleeds. Herron was examined by a physician several days after arriving at the Pima County jail. Thus, Herron's allegations amount only to a difference of opinion as to the proper treatment of his medical needs and fails to state a constitutional violation. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Shields, v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d at 410.

Herron also contends the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel. This contention lacks merit. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 199-200 (9th Cir.1987), we find that the absence of "exceptional circumstances" justified the district court's denial of Herron's motion for appointment of counsel. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.