Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, Judge).
Ceparano v. Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Health
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of June, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, JOSE A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 20, 2010 judgment of the District Court be VACATED with regard to "Nurse Practitioner Alice" and the municipality of Suffolk County, AFFIRMED with regard to the remaining defendants and the cause be REMANDED for further proceedings. Appellant Anthony Ceparano appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Ceparano, proceeding pro se,*fn2 alleging that medical personnel at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility ("SCCF") were deliberately indifferent to his severe pain and discomfort during his incarceration at that facility in 2007 and 2008. Ceparano further alleged that the medical personnel's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs came about as a result of a municipal policy of Suffolk County (the "County") favoring cost-cutting at the expense of inmates' health.
Ceparano's complaint was dismissed without prejudice by the District Court in an order of July 13, 2010, substantially adopting a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Kathleen A. Tomlinson, Magistrate Judge) (the "Report"). The District Court's order modified the Report to permit Ceparano to file an amended complaint curing various defects in the pleadings within thirty days. Ceparano failed to file an amended complaint, and the action was dismissed with prejudice on September 15, 2010.*fn3
We note that Ceparano's failure to file an amended complaint does not affect our jurisdiction on appeal. Because final judgment was entered against Ceparano on September 20, 2010*fn4 as a result of his failure to cure the pleading deficiencies discussed in the District Court's July 13, 2010 memorandum and order, which substantially adopted the Report and dismissed sua sponte Ceparano's complaint, we review the July 13, 2010 order on this appeal. See Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661, 667-68 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see also Fielding v. Tollaksen, 510 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that "interlocutory orders rendered in [a] case typically merge with the [final] judgment for purposes of appellate review" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
On appeal, Ceparano raises the following issues: (1) whether the District Court erred in dismissing his claim that the prison medical staff was deliberately indifferent to his spinal condition; (2) whether the misdiagnosis or failure to provide treatment for his knee pain constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs; (3) whether his failure to file an amended complaint should affect our consideration or disposition of this appeal, as argued by defendants; (4) whether his failure to effect service on individual defendants affects this appeal, where he received no aid in locating those defendants from the District Court or the United States Marshals Service; and (5) whether clarification is necessary regarding the District Court's ruling construing claims against the Suffolk County Department of Health and the Suffolk County Correction Facility Jail Medical Unit as claims against Suffolk County.
We review the District Court's ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo.*fn5 Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 2006). After de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the District Court except insofar as it relates to Ceparano's allegations against "Nurse Practitioner Alice" ("NP Alice") and his claim of municipal liability. We vacate the judgment of the District ...