From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coley v. Cassim

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 24, 2009
2:07-CV-00934-PMP-GWF (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009)

Opinion

2:07-CV-00934-PMP-GWF.

August 24, 2009


ORDER


Before the Court for consideration is Defendant Dr. Cassim's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #78) filed July 6, 2009. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for consideration.

In his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Cassim argues that the record does not support a finding that he acted with "deliberate indifference" to Plaintiff's medical needs, and he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was performing discretionary functions and his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of Plaintiff Coley. The Court agrees.

Specifically, Plaintiff Coley has failed to identify admissible evidence which would support his claims before the finder of fact or evidence that the treatment he received from Dr. Cassim was outside the range of care required by the Eighth Amendment. Mere conclusions and opinions on the part of Plaintiff are insufficient to meet this requirement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Dr. Cassim's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #78) is hereby GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to forthwith enter judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Cassim and against Plaintiff Andrew Calvin Coley.


Summaries of

Coley v. Cassim

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 24, 2009
2:07-CV-00934-PMP-GWF (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009)
Case details for

Coley v. Cassim

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW CALVIN COLEY, Plaintiff, v. DR. CASSIM, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 24, 2009

Citations

2:07-CV-00934-PMP-GWF (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009)