1

16-3444 

Barrow v. Farago

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 22nd day of December, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: 

DENNIS JACOBS,

REENA RAGGI, 

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

VINCENT BARROW, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 16-3444 

DR. LAWRENCE FARAGO, PSYCHIATRIST,

BRYAN HILTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF 

PROGRAMS, MICHAEL HOAGAN, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF MENTAL 

HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, ANTHONY DEVITTO, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL 

PROGRAMING, DIANE VANBUREN, 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BOB LEWIS, 

OMH THERAPIST, LISA KALIES, UNIT 

CHIEF, OMH, RESIDENTIAL MENTAL 

HEALTH UNIT, JOSEPH BELLNIER, 
2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROGRAM 

SERVICE, KENNETH S. PERLMAN, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER OF PROGRAM SERVICE, 

LUCIEN LECLAIRE, ASSISTANT 

COMMISSIONER, MAUREEN E. BOLL, 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COUNSEL, 

E. LINDQUIST, ASSISTANT 

COMMISSIONER, KAREN BELLAMY, 

DIRECTOR, INMATE GRIEVANCE 

PROGRAM, JEFF MCKOY, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, MAUREEN BOSCO, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL NEW 

YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, OFFICE OF 

MENTAL HEALTH, B. MCARDLE, DEPUTY 

SUPERINTENDENT OF MARCY 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DONALD 

SELSKEY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

LIEUTENANT CORY, HOLANCHUCK, 

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, 

CAPTAIN HARPER, CHARLES KELLY, JR., 

SUPERINTENDENT, MARCY 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

 

Defendants-Appellees, 

ADOLF, CORRECTIONS COUNSELOR, NEW 

YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL 

HEALTH, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, MARCY, NEW 

YORK, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK 

STATE, KINDERMAN, DEPUTY SUPT. OF 

PROGRAMS, 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Vincent Barrow, pro se, Comstock, NY. 

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, 

Victor Paladino and Patrick Woods, 

Assistant Solicitors General, for Eric T. 

Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State 

of New York, Albany, NY. 
3

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

New York (D’Agostino, J.; Hummel, M.J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant Vincent Barrow, a prison inmate appearing pro se, brought the instant suit under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, claiming violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Barrow’s claims 

are based primarily on allegations that the defendants required him to wear an exposure jumpsuit 

(a jumpsuit designed to prevent the wearer from removing it) when he left his cell; placed a sign 

reading “exposer” outside his cell; afforded him inadequate process before taking the foregoing 

measures; disproportionately required minority inmates to wear exposure jumpsuits; provided 

inadequate medical care for his foot pain, exhibitionism, and depression; and denied him access to 

certain programming. The district court dismissed on motion all of Barrow’s claims, except for 

an Eighth Amendment claim that his psychiatrist denied treatment for his depression. The court 

later resolved that claim adversely to Barrow on summary judgment. Barrow appeals both the 

dismissal and the grant of summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 

1. We review the district court’s decision to dismiss virtually all of Barrow’s claims de 

novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). An independent 

review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed 

Barrow’s claims for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough September 

25, 2014 report and recommendation, which the district court adopted in its entirety. See Barrow 

v. Buren, No. 9:12-CV-01268, 2015 WL 417084, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015). 

2. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Barrow’s claim of 

inadequate medical care de novo. Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2012). To 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on inadequate medical care, Barrow would need 

to prove that “the alleged deprivation of adequate medical care [was] sufficiently serious,” and that 

the defendant--Barrow's psychiatrist--acted with deliberate indifference to Barrow’s health. 

Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279-80 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

As the district court concluded, Barrow failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material 

fact as to whether his psychiatrist acted with deliberate indifference in discontinuing his 

prescription for a particular depression medication. The record on summary judgment showed 

that the psychiatrist offered Barrow other treatment for his depression, including cognitive 

behavioral therapy. See Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir. 1998) (“So long as the 

treatment given is adequate, the fact that a prisoner might prefer a different treatment does not give 

rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.”). Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that Barrow 

refused visits with his psychiatrist and only partially complied with his treatment. 
4

 

We have considered Barrow’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court