UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 26, 2008
SANTOS VELEZ, PLAINTIFF,
M.T. GULDAN, DDS; N. SMITH, NURSE ADMINISTRATOR; AND SUPERINTENDENT WOODS, DEFENDANTS.
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 11, 2008, by the Honorable Gustave J. DiBianco, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 54).
Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge DiBianco's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 54) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 43) is GRANTED with respect to all claims against Defendants Nurse Administrator Smith and Superintendent Woods; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's first claim against Defendant Dr. Guldan, that the 25-month delay in treatment constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 43) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's second claim against Dr. Guldan, that the dental care received by Plaintiff after November 2004 was inadequate and deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's cross-Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53) is DENIED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.