The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge:
OPINION & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff, Martin Hodge ("Hodge"), is serving a sentence of twenty-five years to life at the Sullivan Correctional Facility ("Sullivan") in the New York State correctional system. Since his incarceration began in 1986, he has filed multiple § 1983 actions against the Department of Corrections ("DOC") concerning his medical treatment by prison staff and other circumstances of his confinement. In November 2009, Hodge commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, again asserting Eighth Amendment violations and possibly violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, after defendants allegedly failed to provide him with satisfactory medical treatment, adequate heating, and hot water in the Facility. Defendants include DOC administrators, as well as doctors and nurses whom Hodge alleges treated him.
On February 1, 2010 the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Michael Dolinger for general pretrial matters and dispositive motions. After discovery, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on November 2, 2010, Magistrate Judge Dolinger issued a Report and
DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: March 6, 2012
Recommendation ("R&R") advising that the Court dismiss Hodge's complaint and grant him leave to amend in order to name additional defendants. The Court adopted that R&R on March 24, 2011 and dismissed the complaint; but allowed Hodge to re-plead certain claims. See Hodge v. Sidorowicz, et al., No. 10 Civ. 428(PAC)(MHD), 2011 WL 1226280 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011) (the "March 24, 2011 Order").
In December 2010, while a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was pending, Hodge filed a motion for injunctive relief compelling eye surgery. On April 20, 2011, he filed an Amended Complaint which largely reiterated his original allegations. Hodge has served his newest pleading on only Dr. Wladyslaw Sidorowicz and Deputy Superintendent Lynn Lilly, however.
On June 15, 2011, Dr. Sidorowicz and Deputy Superintendent Lilly moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On December 20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Dolinger issued an R&R recommending that the Court dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On December 29, 2011, Hodge timely filed 42 pages of objections to the R&R, and Defendants filed a response to his objections on January 12, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R in full and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the background facts, procedural history, and allegations as stated in its March 24, 2011 Order. In his Amended Complaint, Hodge now names ten defendants, including Dr. Sidorowicz, Deputy Superintendent Lynn Lilley, four members of the nursing staff, and a John/Jane Doe defendant. The Amended Complaint reasserts Hodge's claims against Dr. Sidorowicz for denial of adequate medical care beginning in 2006 (e.g., delay in post-surgical follow-up visits to an eye surgeon and denial of various medications). Hodge also reiterates his allegation that nursing staff falsified entries in his medical records to state that he had received certain medications and that medications were disappearing from the prison clinic. He alleges that Defendants failed to remedy the situation despite his complaints. Hodge also contends that Dr. Sidorowicz requested that prison staff search Hodge's cell to look for outdated medications, and that as a result of this search, Hodge was charged with violating prison rules. In addition to alleging general complaints about the adequacy of the prison grievance system, Hodge realleges that Deputy Superintendents Lilley and Moore have failed to maintain adequate heating in the Facility as required by DOC regulations, and that his complaints have been ignored.
In their motion to dismiss, Defendants contended that the Amended Complaint did not allege their personal involvement in any constitutional torts; that Deputy Superintendent Lilley was protected by a qualified immunity defense; and that the heating and hot water claims fail to state a cognizable claim.
A. Magistrate Judge Dolinger's R&R
1. Motion for Preliminary ...