Summary
dismissing deliberate indifference claim that the plaintiff "should have continued to receive a low-level narcotic instead of a non-narcotic drug," because the claim "essentially asserts a difference in opinion as to the appropriate medication for pain relief"
Summary of this case from Jacks v. AnnucciOpinion
9:08-CV-1139.
March 11, 2010
MIGUEL VILLANUEVA, aka Fontanez, AMKC, East Elmhurst, NY.
JUSTIN C. LEVIN, ESQ., Asst. Attorney General, HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for Defendants, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York.
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff, Miguel Villanueva, aka Miguel Fontanez, commenced this civil rights action in October 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated February 4, 2010, the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and that judgment be granted to both defendants on all claims. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.
Based upon a careful review of the file, and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Homer, 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 (Docket No. 22) is GRANTED;
2. Judgment is GRANTED to both defendants on all claims; and
3. The Clerk is directed to file judgment accordingly and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.