Cole v. Goord
This text of 379 F. App'x 28 (Cole v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Ronnie Cole (“plaintiff’ or “Cole”), proceeding pro se, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants-appellees (“defendants”) on plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and from an order denying his motion for re *29 consideration. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by refusing to follow all of the recommendations of a urologist who examined him. On appeal he argues that the differing medical opinions expressed by his doctors create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the ultimate course of treatment approved by prison officials amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.
We find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of plaintiffs claims. The District Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants and did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 1 of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and careful orders entered April 30 and May 27, 2009. See Cole v. Goord, No. 04 Civ. 8906, 2009 WL 1181295 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.30, 2009) (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment); Cole v. Goord, No. 04 Civ. 8609, Docket Entry No. 63 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2009) (denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration).
CONCLUSION
We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs motion to appear at oral argument is DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
379 F. App'x 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-goord-ca2-2010.