Case ID: f-appx_375/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlton JOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MANAGED HEALTH CARE, Edward Pesanti, Mark Buchanan, Edward Blanchette, Leslie Cutler, Lisa Jaser, Clyde MacDougal, Albert N. Toro, Craig McDonald, Timothy Silvis, Monica Farinella, Ricardo Ruiz, C. Graham, Teresa Lantz, Irene Marion, Robert Franks, Robert Deveou, Richard Furey, Heidi Doe, Margo Griffin, George P. Haas, Sayeed Naqui, Gloria Rodriguez, Jeff Spraque, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-0643-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 27, 2010.
    Carlton Jolley, Suffield, CT, pro se.
    Neil Parille, Assistant Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Carlton Jolley (“plaintiff’ or “Jolley”), pro se, an inmate in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, appeals from the District Court’s entry of summaiy judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Correctional Managed Health Care (“CMHC”), Edward Pesanti, Mark Buchanan, Edward Blan-chette, Leslie Cutler, Lisa Jaser, Clyde MacDougal, Albert N. Toro, Craig McDonald, Timothy Silvis, Monica Farinella, Ricardo Ruiz, C. Graham, Teresa Lantz, Irene Marion, Robert Franks, Robert De-veou, Richard Furey, Heidi Doe, Margo Griffin, George P. Haas, Sayeed Naqui, Gloria Rodriguez, and Jeff Spraque (jointly, “defendants”), in his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical and dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, and particularly that: (1) regarding his dental claims, the District Court (a) improperly found that the Utilization Review Committee defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for the delay in plaintiffs periodontal care, and (b) failed to consider his other related arguments; (2) regarding his nutritional and diet claims, (a) the District Court incorrectly found that Jolley failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims, and (b) Jolley should not be required to purchase extra fiber; (3) the District Court erroneously concluded that there was no dispute of fact pertaining to plaintiffs Ibuprofen-related ailments; (4) the District Court improperly considered the affirmative defense of collateral estop-pel, where the defendants pleaded only res judicata; and (6) the District Court failed to consider that Jolley’s alleged constitutional violations were a direct result of an official policy of the CMHC. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157,160 (2d Cir.1999). We will affirm the grant of summary judgment by the District Court if the record indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a- matter of law.” Pilgnm v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An independent review of the record, case law, and arguments on appeal in the instant case reveals that the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of January 30, 2009, Jol-ley v. Corr. Managed Health Care, No. 3:04-CV-1582, 2009 WL 233667 (D.Conn. Jan.30, 2009), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.