Ponce v. Manava et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge Thrse Wiley Dancks (Dkt. No. 71 ) is accepted. ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54 ) is gr anted. ORDERED that the action is dismissed with prejudice. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this Memorandum-Decision and Order upon plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/26/15. {order served via certified mail return receipt on plaintiff} (nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

STEVEN PONCE,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:13-CV-274 (NAM/TWD)

VENKATA MANAVA, DR. RAMINENI,
K. WILLIAMS,
N

Defendants.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

APPEARANCES:
Steven Ponce
37-70 104th Street
Apt. 1 Floor
Corona, New York 11368
Plaintiff, pro se
A

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York
Justin L. Engel, Esq., Assistant New York State Attorney
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants

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

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming in
his amended complaint (Dkt. No. 13) that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing
to provide him with adequate medical care at Mid-State Correctional Facility. Defendants moved
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54). Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks issued a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 71) recommending that summary judgment be granted in its entirety.

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’ summary of the facts and applicable law, and does
not repeat them here.
Plaintiff has submitted an objection (Dkt. No. 73), focusing almost exclusively on
Magistrate Judge Dancks’ recommendation regarding the diagnosis and treatment of his right
wrist injury. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducts de novo review of the
issue. Reading plaintiff’s submissions, including his objection, most liberally and interpreting
N

them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest, see McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276,
280 (2d Cir. 1999), the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dancks that, in connection with his
wrist injury, plaintiff states at most a claim of negligence in diagnosing and/or treating the injury.
It is well established that “[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation
merely because the victim [was] a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Rather,

A

“to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Id. Plaintiff makes no such showing.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’s Report-Recommendation and Order recommending
dismissal of this claim.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint also complains of defendants’ treatment of his right knee
and back pain. Reading plaintiff’s pro se submissions with all the deference to which they are

M

entitled, the Court finds on de novo review that plaintiff’s complaints regarding his right knee
amount to no more than a disagreement with his health care providers regarding the proper
treatment. Such disagreement is not enough to resist summary judgment. Nor, upon de novo
review, does the Court find evidence in the record from which a reasonable fact finder could
conclude that plaintiff’s back pain constituted a serious medical condition. The Court adopts the

-2-

Report-Recommendation and Order in this regard as well.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate
Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks (Dkt. No. 71) is accepted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 54) is granted; and
it is further
N

ORDERED that the action is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order upon plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 26, 2015
Syracuse, New York

A
M

-3-