Wesolowski v. Harvey
784 F. Supp. 2d 231
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Wesolowski, pro se plaintiff, sued Dr. Harvey and Superintendent McGinnis for alleged Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment due to lack of dental care at Southport Correctional Facility.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that Wesolowski failed to state a claim or prove deliberate indifference.
- Wesolowski alleged a seven-month delay between his initial dental treatment request (Oct 1, 2001) and his first appointment (Apr 11, 2002).
- It is undisputed Wesolowski was not incarcerated at Southport until April 2002, implying earlier complaints were at a different facility and not parties to this action.
- Dr. Harvey treated Wesolowski with medications, sedative fillings, X-rays, and teeth cleaning; Wesolowski alleges records were fraudulently altered and disputes treatment options.
- The court found no constitutional violation given the medical judgment and the lack of evidence of deliberate indifference, and dismissed both defendants with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of dental care constitutes deliberate indifference | Wesolowski argues the treatment was inadequate and delayed to retaliate against him | Harvey provided treatment with medications and procedures; delay or alternatives were not deliberate indifference | No genuine dispute of material fact; no deliberate indifference established |
| Whether the seven-month delay supports an Eighth Amendment claim | Delay shows deliberate indifference by defendants | Delay attributed to plaintiff not incarcerated at Southport; not attributable to defendants | Delay not attributable; not a constitutional violation |
| Whether McGinnis can be liable for Dr. Harvey’s conduct | McGinnis failed to supervise/training | No underlying constitutional violation; no personal involvement established | Claim against McGinnis dismissed for lack of underlying violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976) (deliberate indifference standard; medical malpractice not per se violation)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir., 1998) (disagreement with medical treatment not Eighth Amendment violation)
- Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496 (2d Cir., 1994) (personal involvement requirement in supervision claims)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir., 1995) (rules for personal involvement in constitutional violations)
- Campo v. Keane, 913 F. Supp. 814 (S.D.N.Y., 1996) (no personal involvement without underlying violation; supervisory claims require more)