Court Opinion

ID: 2964149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:19.132695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.444262
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2296

                               WILLIAM J. GALLANT, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            LARRY E. DUBOIS, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edward  J. McCormick, III  and McCormick  & Maitland  on brief for
            _________________________      _____________________
        appellant.
            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
            ____________________
        Sondra  M. Korman,  Counsel, Department  of  Correction, on  brief for
        _________________
        appellee Larry Dubois.
            Bruce R. Henry, Joseph L. Bierwirth,  Jr. and Morrison, Mahoney  &
            ______________  _________________________     ____________________
        Miller, on brief for appellee Burton Levine, M.D.
        ______

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Having carefully reviewed the parties'
                      __________

            briefs and the appellate record, we conclude that this appeal

            does not  present  a substantial  question.   We  affirm  the

            summary judgment  in favor  of the  defendants, for  the same

            reasons  stated by  the district  court.   We add  only these

            comments. 

                      Plaintiff   contends   that   the  district   court

            improperly ignored  his affidavit.   However,  that affidavit

            broadly  contradicts  plaintiff's  own   specific  deposition

            testimony and  the letters he  wrote, and no  explanation was

            given  for  the contradiction.    In  that circumstance,  the

            affidavit  was insufficient to  withstand defendants' motions

            for summary  judgment.  See  Colantuoni v. Alfred  Calcagni &
                                    ___  __________    __________________

            Sons Inc., 44 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1994).
            _________

                      Because we  agree with the district  court that the

            overwhelming evidence, notwithstanding plaintiff's affidavit,

            showed that medical  care was not withheld by defendants, but

            rather  was  refused  by  plaintiff,  we  reject  plaintiff's

            contention  that  material  issues  of fact  remained  as  to

            defendants'  states  of  mind.    Put   another  way,  as  no

            indifference  was shown,  no material  issue of  "deliberate"

            indifference  remained.    Further,   there  having  been  no

            deprivation of medical  care within the  scope of the  Eighth

            Amendment, it would  have been futile to  amend the complaint

            to  add  another  Department  of  Correction  official  as  a

            defendant.

                                         -3-

                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -4-