Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reed v. McArdle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 30, 2008

TERRY REED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERT F. MCARDLE, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONAL DENTAL SERVICES; DR. JOHN GIBSON, DENTIST; AND DR. PAUL KULLMAN, DENTIST, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge

ORDER

In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated January 9, 2007, Magistrate Judge Homer recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff has filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 35.

Although it is somewhat difficult to discern the specific nature of Plaintiff's objections, it appears that he is arguing that the Court should not grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment because, among other things, Drs. Gibson and Kullman failed to provide him with proper dental care, in that they refused to provide him with partial dentures. See, generally, Dkt. No. 35.*fn1

The Court has reviewed the file in its entirety and finds that Plaintiff's objections are without merit. As Magistrate Judge Homer stated in his Report-Recommendation and Order, "mere disagreement over proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim as long as the treatment was adequate. . . . Allegations of negligence or malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference unless the malpractice involved culpable recklessness." See Dkt. No. 34 at 5 (citations omitted). The record makes clear that Drs. Gibson and Kullman have not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's dental needs; to the contrary, they have advised him that, due to the progressive nature of his periodontal disease, he needs to have all of his teeth extracted to be fitted with dentures. See id. at 5-6. Plaintiff has refused this treatment, which multiple dentists have recommended, because he insists that he only needs partial dentures. Such a disagreement about the proper treatment of his dental condition is insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. Therefore, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Homer's January 9, 2007 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED; and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendants and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.