The Honor able T.S. Ellis, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Virg inia, sitti ngby

designation

. 08-3131-pr Day v. Warren 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT SU MM ARY ORDER
R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI T AT I ON TO A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 200 7, I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PR OCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A DOCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI T E E I T HER T HE F E DE RAL A PPE NDI X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P A R TY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Danie l Patrick Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 12 day

of January , two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: W i l fr edFe i nb er g,

Robert A. Katzm ann, Circuit Judges , T
. S
. E l l i s , III , * District Judge
.

______________________________________________ J a s o nM o ur i c e D ay,

Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 08-3131-pr J ohn Warren, Ca

ptain; Cappirillio, L t.; Dennis J ones, Dir. of Sec urity ; J ames McG aughey , Dir.; Nanc y B. Al isb e rg , Atty .; Jame s E . D zur e nd a , Ward e n; C a str o, MD ; O’ Ha le ra n, MD ; Joan D ob so n, Me d Gri e va nc e s Co or din ator ; Pat Morris, Med. Supv.; J ohn Doe, Me d. Refer ral Supv., U- Conn U CMH C/U RC; M a rk B uc ha na n, Clin ic a l D ir .; Fa rinella, MD; Ruiz, MD; Naqui, MD,

Defendants-A

ppellees
.

_______________________________________________2

FOR APPEL LANT: J ason M. Day , pro s e , Ch e sh ir e , Co nn e c tic ut. FOR APPEL L EES: Richard B lumenthal, Attorney Gene ral for

the State of Connecticut (Ann E . Ly

nch, Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, on the br ie f) , H art fo rd , Co nn e c tic ut. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J. ). UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Jason Mourice Da y , pro s e , appea ls from a judgment of the district cour t grantingsummary

judgme nt to the Defe ndants, employees of the Connecticut Department of Correc tion, and dismiss ing D ay ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which alleg ed unconstitutional conditions of confine ment and deliber ate indiffe renc e to a se rious medical ne ed in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition ag ainst crue l and unusual punishment. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, a

nd the issues on appea l. As an initial matter, the only decision Da

y challeng es on appe al is the district court’s June 5, 20 08 orde r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt, and

he ha s th e re fo re wa ive d a ny c ha lle ng e to the district court’s prior order s in this l itigation. See Norton v. Sam’ s Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ) ( “ I ssu e s n ot s uf fi c ie ntl y argue d in the br ie fs are c on sid e re d w a ive d a nd no rm a lly wi ll n ot b e a dd

re sse d o n a

pp e a l.” ); LoS

ac c o v . Ci ty

of M idd le tow n , 71 F.3d 88, 93 ( 2d Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( “[ W ] e n ee d

n o tm anu fa cture cl ai m s o f e rr o r f o r anap p el l an tp ro ce ed i n g pro se . . . .”). We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and ask whether the district court prope rly conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Se eMi lle r v . W

olp off &3

Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f

a c t, w e are “ re qu ir e d to re so lvea ll ambi guit ie s a nd dr aw a ll p e rm iss ibl e fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Terry v. As hc ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Howeve r, “conc lusory

statement[s] or mere alleg ations [are] not sufficient to defe at a summary judgme nt motion.” Da v is v . S

tateof N e w York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 ( 2d Cir. 2002). We affir m for substantially

the same r easons state d in the district court’s thorough and
we ll r e a so ne d o pin ion . T he De fe nd ants we re e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw b e c a

us e Day failed to e stablish that the conditions of his confinement violated c ontemporar y standards of dec ency , see Phe lps v. Kapnolas , 3 08 F .3 d 1 80 , 1 85 (2 d Ci r. 20 02 ), or that th e De fe nd ants knew of and disreg arde d an excessive risk to his health, see Farm er v. Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 83 7 ( 19 94 ); Sa lah ud

din v . G oo rd, 4 67 F .3 d 2 63 , 2 79 -8 0 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 6) ; see also Chancev. Armstrong , 143 F.3d 698, 703 ( 2d Cir. 1998) (“[M]ere disagree ment over the proper treatment does not cre ate a

constitutional claim. So l ongas the tre atment g iven is adequate, the fa ct that a prisoner might pre fer

a diffe rent tre atment does not g ive rise to an E ighth Ame ndment vio latio n. ” ); Smith v. Carpenter , 3 16 F .3 d 1 78 , 1 84 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ) ( “ B e c a us e the Ei ghth Amendment is not a vehic le for bringingmedical malpr actice claims, nor a substitute for state tort law, not eve ry

lapse in prison medica l car e will rise to the leve l of a c onstitut ional violation.”). F or the for eg oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby AF F IRM ED
. FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :________________________