UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
January 24, 2011
MICHAEL RANNEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the assignment of this case to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment. Dkt. #38.
Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that discovery he received from defendants was not filed with the Court and was not, therefore, before the Court for consideration with respect to defendants' motion for summary judgment. *fn1
Setting aside any procedural issues with regard to plaintiff's motion, the Court has reviewed the documents submitted by plaintiff and discerns no basis to disturb its determination of the motions for summary judgment. Nothing in the defendants' discovery responses contradicts the Court's finding that Plaintiff's claim amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the treatment he received and his insistence that he be prescribed certain medications. Without more, plaintiff's disagreement with the medical treatment he received does not rise to the level of a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Based on the record before this Court, plaintiff cannot satisfy
either the objective or the subjective prong sufficient to establish
an Eighth Amendment violation. Even assuming arguendo
that plaintiff's alleged injuries do meet the objective component
of an Eighth Amendment violation, the actions taken by defendants
Ranney, Joseph and Van Woert do not represent deliberate indifference
to those injuries. Plaintiff's mental health and medical records
unequivocally establish that plaintiff was repeatedly evaluated and
treated. Moreover, other than his own opinion, plaintiff has not
submitted any evidence in admissible form to establish that prior to
late June 2006 his mental condition warranted the prescription of
Celexa or any other medication.
Dkt. #87, p.23. Therefore, plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (Dkt. ##89-90), are denied.
DATED: Buffalo, New York