United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [DOC. #43]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ryan Terbush (“plaintiff”) brings this action
against defendant Department of Correction Captain Mitchell
(“defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to
plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Doc.
#37, Second Amended Complaint.
before the Court is defendant's Second Motion for Summary
Judgment. [Doc. #42]. Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to defendant's motion [Doc. #44], to which
defendant has filed a reply [Doc. #45].
reasons articulated below, the defendant's Second Motion
for Summary Judgment [Doc. #43] is GRANTED.
filed his complaint on September 8, 2015. [Doc. #1].
Following two amendments of his initial pleading, plaintiff
now proceeds under the operative Second Amended Complaint
(the “Second Amended Complaint”). [Doc. #37]. The
Second Amended Complaint alleges a single count against
defendant. Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights
were violated when defendant deprived plaintiff of the
opportunity to attend a medical appointment, resulting in
plaintiff's “physical health [having] been gravely
jeopardized.” See generally Doc. #37 at
¶¶10-16. Defendant now moves for summary judgment.
The standards governing summary judgment are well-settled.
Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits ... show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 285-86 (2d Cir.
2002). Summary judgment is proper if, after discovery, the
nonmoving party “has failed to make a sufficient
showing on an essential element of [his] case with respect to
which [he] has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (alterations
party seeking summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate
that no genuine issue of material fact
exists.”Marvel Characters, 310 F.3d at 286. The
moving party may discharge this burden by “pointing out
to the district court ... that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325; see also Goenaga v. Mar.
of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.
1995) (“In moving for summary judgment against a party
who will bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial, the
movant's burden will be satisfied if he can point to an
absence of evidence to support an essential element of the
nonmoving party's claim.”).
deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he court
must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor
of the nonmoving party[.]” Aldrich v. Randolph
Cent. Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 1992).
“If there is any evidence in the record that could
reasonably support a jury's verdict for the non-moving
party, summary judgment must be denied.” Am. Home
Assur. Co. v. Hapag Lloyd Container Linie, GmbH, 446
F.3d 313, 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Marvel, 310 F.3d at
286) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be
no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 247-48 (emphases in original).
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court
may rely on any material that would be admissible or usable
at trial.” Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v.
Salvino, Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 309 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Azrielli v. Cohen Law Offices, 21 F.3d 512, 517 (2d
Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as
here, “a summary judgment motion is supported or
opposed by affidavits, those ‘affidavits shall be made
on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be
admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated
therein.'” Id. at 310 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Therefore,
[i]n order to defeat a properly supported summary judgment
motion, the opposing party must proffer admissible evidence
that “set[s] forth specific facts” showing a
genuinely disputed factual issue that is material under the
applicable legal principles. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see,
e.g., Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 219
(2d Cir. 2004)[.] A party opposing summary judgment does not
show the existence of a genuine issue of fact to be tried
merely by making assertions that are conclusory, see, e.g.,
Kulak v. City of New York, 88 F.3d 63, 71 (2d Cir.
1996), or based on speculation, see, e.g., Id.
(“Though we must accept as true the allegations of the
party defending against the summary judgment motion, drawing
all reasonable inferences in his favor, ... conclusory
statements, conjecture, or speculation by the party resisting
the motion will not defeat summary judgment.”)[.]
League Baseball, 542 F.3d at 310 (alterations added).