Barndt v. Bohinski

Full title: THOMAS BARNDT, Plaintiff v. DR. STANLEY BOHINSKI, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 12, 2011

CIVIL NO. 3:09-CV-1790 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 3:09-CV-1790.

October 12, 2011

ORDER

WILLIAM CALDWELL, Senior District Judge

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the thorough and thoughtful Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 142), and full consideration of Plaintiff's objections to said Report (Doc. 143), it is ORDERED that said Report (Doc. 142) is approved.

As made clear in the Report, Plaintiff's contentions are a classic example of disagreements concerning the propriety of medical treatment rendered by a doctor to his patients, and we agree that Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the treatment afforded him does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation for cruel and unusual punishment. We also agree that Defendant Bohinski is entitled to immunity, as outlined and discussed in the Report.

Pursuant to Judge Carlson's Recommendations, it is ORDERED that Defendant Bohinski's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 131) is GRANTED.

Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Bohinski and against Plaintiff.