Johnson v. Wright

Full title: James K. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Medical Director Lester WRIGHT…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 21, 2009

324 F. App'x 144 (2d Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-1488-pr.

May 21, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.

James Johnson, Attica, NY, pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General of the State of New York, Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SONIA SOTOMAYOR and J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, Circuit Judges.^_

_ The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant James K. Johnson appeals pro se from a March 14, 2007 judgment dismissing his complaint against ten employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services for allegedly violating his Eighth Amendment rights by providing inadequate medical treatment for a knee injury during his incarceration at Five Points Correctional Facility. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, Johnson must come forward with evidence showing that defendants "acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 247 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). Johnson has failed to meet this burden. As the District Court explained, "[Johnson] was treated for knee pain, and surgery was performed. That plaintiff may have preferred a more aggressive course of treatment, or more prompt surgery, does not show that defendants acted wantonly with the purpose of causing him pain." Johnson v. Wright, All F.Supp.2d 572, 576 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). We agree with the District Court's assessment of the record, and Johnson's new factual allegations, raised for the first time on appeal, do not compel a different result. See, e.g., Robinson v. Gov't of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 146 (2d Cir. 2001) ("In the absence of manifest injustice, we will not hear . . . an assertion [not raised in the district court]." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.