Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Warren v. Corcoran

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York

October 20, 2011, Decided; October 20, 2011, Filed

9:09-CV-1146 (DNH/ATB)



This matter was referred for Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules N.D.N.Y. 72.3(c), by the Honorable David N. Hurd, United States District Judge. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff seeks significant monetary damages. Presently before this court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). (Dkt. No. 33). Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion. For the following reasons, the Court recommends granting defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint in is entirety.

I. Background

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS").1 (Compl. ¶ 1). At all times relevant to the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, he was incarcerated at Cayuga Correctional Facility (Cayuga). (Rule 7.1 Statement ¶ 2).2

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care relating to plaintiff's abdominal pain, and infringed his Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy by disclosing his HIV-positive status to two correctional officers during medical appointments. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-26).

II. Summary Judgment-Legal Standards

] Summary judgment may be granted when the moving party carries its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 563; Thompson v. Gjivoje, 896 F.2d 716, 720 (2d Cir. 1990). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude summary judgment." Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 674 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (citation  [*3] omitted). A dispute about a genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that "a reasonable [fact finder] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).

] In meeting its burden, the party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must move forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272-73 (2d Cir. 2006). In determining  [*4] whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, a court must resolve all ambiguities, and draw all inferences, against the movant. See United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1962). However, when the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must do more than "simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 247-48.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135012 *; 2011 WL 5599587

EVAN WARREN, Plaintiff, -v.- MICHAEL CORCORAN, et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Accepted by, Summary judgment granted by, Complaint dismissed at Warren v. Corcoran, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132868 (N.D.N.Y, Nov. 17, 2011)


inmate's, alleges, corrections officer, abdominal pain, medication, indicates, deliberate indifference, infectious disease, appointment, vomiting, medical care, healthcare, entity, pain, summary judgment, medical need, disclosure, prescribed, diagnosed, bowel, staff, summary judgment motion, issue of material fact, qualified immunity, right to privacy, RECOMMENDATION, constipation, defendants', antiviral, scheduled

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Civil Rights Law, Protection of Rights, Prisoner Rights, Medical Treatment, Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Business & Corporate Compliance, Medical Treatment, Patient Confidentiality, Medical Records Under HIPAA, Safety, Immunity From Liability, Local Officials