Watson v. Wright et al

Filing 104

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 99 Report and Recommendation is accepted; ORDERED that 92 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the case dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 9/27/11. {order served via regular mail on all non-ecf parties}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜

CHARLES WATSON,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:08-CV-62 (NAM/ATB)

DR. LESTER WRIGHT, Chief Medical Officer,
DOCS; and DOYON DE AZEVEDO, FHSD,
Clinton CF,
N

Defendants.
˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜

APPEARANCES:

A

CHARLES WATSON 03-A-2302
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2002
Dannemora, New York 12929
Plaintiff Pro Se
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York
AARON M. BALDWIN, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants

Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
M

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved
(Dkt. No. 92) for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claim in the second amended
complaint (Dkt. No. 40). Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter issued a thorough Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 99) recommending that the motion be granted and the case dismissed.

After reviewing the record and applicable law, Magistrate Judge Baxter concludes that no
reasonable jury could find that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical
needs. Nor could a reasonable jury find that Dr. de Azevedo’s treatment of plaintiff was based on
retaliatory or discriminatory motives, as opposed to an exercise of his medical judgment.
Moreover, Magistrate Judge Baxter finds that, even if there were an issue of material fact,
defendants would be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, because it was
N

objectively reasonable for them to believe that their treatment of plaintiff did not constitute
deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Plaintiff has submitted an objection (Dkt. No. 102). The issues raised in plaintiff’s
objection have been addressed in the Report and Recommendation, and the Court does not
discuss them again here. Upon de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court

A

accepts the Report and Recommendation in all respects.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 99) is accepted; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 92) is granted and
the case dismissed; and it is further

M

ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in
accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 27, 2011
Syracuse, New York

-2-