From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheils v. Flynn

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 2, 2009
9:06-CV-407 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2009)

Summary

holding that the defendants' failure to immediately diagnose the plaintiff's lesion, although it may amount to medical malpractice, did not amount to deliberate indifference where the plaintiff received frequent medical care and was prescribed various medications

Summary of this case from Miller v. Ramineni

Opinion

9:06-CV-407.

September 2, 2009

KEVIN SHEILS, Plaintiff, pro se, 99-A-5444, Elmira Correctional Facility, Elmira, NY.

HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ., SENTA B. SIUDA, ESQ., Assts. Attorney General, HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for State Defendants, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York.


DECISION and ORDER


Plaintiff, Kevin Sheils, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated May 27, 2009, the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 50) be granted and that plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 53) be denied, and that all claims against defendant Otis be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The plaintiff has timely filed lengthy objections to the report-recommendation.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Lowe, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects.See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
3. The claims against defendant Otis are DISMISSED;
4. The complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety; and
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sheils v. Flynn

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Sep 2, 2009
9:06-CV-407 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2009)

holding that the defendants' failure to immediately diagnose the plaintiff's lesion, although it may amount to medical malpractice, did not amount to deliberate indifference where the plaintiff received frequent medical care and was prescribed various medications

Summary of this case from Miller v. Ramineni

In Sheils, the plaintiff "received frequent medical care" for his skin condition and was "prescribed various medications in an attempt to relieve his symptoms."

Summary of this case from Bardo v. Wright
Case details for

Sheils v. Flynn

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN SHEILS, Plaintiff, v. T. FLYNN, B. LeCUYER, and T. SEAMEN, Each…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Sep 2, 2009

Citations

9:06-CV-407 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2009)

Citing Cases

Parks v. Blanchette

Because Mr. Parks relied on these exhibits, the Court will consider them. SeeGoris v. Breslin , No.…

Nunez v. Bentivegna

At most, Plaintiff's allegations suggest that Dr. Kim was negligent in failing to detect that Mr. Nunez's…