Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

ifiiiA_______I,_____Hi______________AWMI____________..i....._..__.._...ii_._ii_ri
Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 35 Filed O2/22/2005 Page1 0f3 \
uwirso stares oisraicw couaw
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT "“"~~
Mxcxmar Moaimawr, : ZW? FEB 22 $3 {2; 3q W
Plaintiff' : f0i§Y?YHYH HGNC?
PRI ij ;._`..:.Z"` ‘ ‘ '
V. : Case No. 3:02-CV-l662(RNCY
RICHARD NEUBOULD, ET AL., : f
Defendants. : E
I RULING AND ORDER 1
As a result of a previous ruling and order granting in part Q
a motion to dismiss, seg Moriarty v. Neubould, 2004 WL 288807 (D.
Conn. Feb. 10, 2004), familiarity with which is assumed, this
case has been reduced to plaintiff's claim that between April l0 l
and 24, 2002, defendant Steven Stein, M.D., was deliberately R
indifferent to his need for medication for painful migraine 3
headaches. Dr. Stein has moved for summary judgment. For the i
reasons that follow, the motion is granted. I
In the prior ruling, the Court declined to dismiss ,
plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Stein with i
regard to this time period, explaining that plaintiff could have §
a triable claim if “(l) [he] informed Stein of the serious and
recurring nature of his pain; and (2) Stein withheld offering any
form of relief without justification, letting plaintiff i
needlessly suffer for two weeks before seeing him.” See 2004 WL
288807,*2. In support of his motion for summary judgment,
Dr. Stein's submits a Rule 56(c)(l) Statement in which he asserts
that (l) at the time in question he did not receive sick call i


-—--—~—..-.-—-—Fa».w.-..-LM..h—.....—W..........”...“_.....wm......i_-._nr
I Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 35 Filed O2/22/2005 Page20f3 I I
requests but instead received a daily list of patients informing I
him of which inmates he was to see that day; (2) he did not see I
plaintiff until April 17, 2002; (3) he examined plaintiff then,
found him to be in no acute distress, prescribed Motrin for him,
and requested his medical file from Hartford Correctional Center;
and (4) a week later, on April 24, he prescribed Inderol for
plaintiff's migraine complaints. These assertions must be
accepted as true because they have not been refuted by a Local I
Rule 56(c)(2) statement and are supported by admissible evidence. I
Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment raises no triable issue of material fact. The I
memorandum contains no allegation that plaintiff’s complaints of I
painful migraines were conveyed to Dr. Stein before April 17;
affirmatively states that on April 17, Dr. Stein saw him and I
ordered Motrin; and does not deny that on April 24, Dr. Stein saw I
him again and ordered Inderol. I
Plaintiff’s memorandum makes it clear that he continues to I
take issue with Dr. Stein’s decision to refuse to prescribe II
Elavil until May 2, 2002. In the prior ruling, the Court I
explained that Dr. Stein's decision to use other medications I
would not support a claim of deliberate indifference. gge 2004 I
WL 288807,*3. Nothing in plaintiff’s memorandum (or Dr. Stein’s I
papers) casts doubt on that conclusion. II
I
I
I
2 II
I

l Meeem-——-—e_.-»—---¤.-»»—-—--—--M.M_...*....—*...~—.....—*.“—...._l__..L-
I
Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 35 Filed O2/22/2005 Page 3 of 3 I )
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby
granted. The Clerk may close the file. ‘
So ordered. _ I
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 20th day of February,
‘2005.
A »”“
I Robert N. Chatiggyj Q
United States District Judge {
3 I {
Q