Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 RegisterActionDate "2013-05-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Plaintiff 258C81C, a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center, alleges that officials at the prison have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs resulting from diabetes. After a period of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment. On September 7, 2012, the court granted the motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Plaintiff does suffer from a serious medical condition, but the evidence did not support his claim that the prison's medical director (Defendant Dr. Ghosh) or staff physicians (Defendants Dr. Zhang and E233051) were deliberately indifferent to those medical needs. Plaintiff claimed, generally, that Dr. Ghosh failed to adhere to proper standards of care and that the staff physicians denied him access to regular monitoring of his blood sugar levels and treatment from a podiatrist or dietician. Notably, there is no evidence of specific communications about these issues with any of the doctors. And the evidence showed that Plaintiff's condition is well managed; he takes regular medication, gets a healthy diet and exercise, and is allowed access to snacks, to a pressure cuff, to soft leather shoes, and to regular visits at a diabetes clinic. With respect to Plaintiff's claims against other prison officials, their failure to respond in a satisfactory way to Plaintiff's grievances does not support a constitutional claim.258C81C now asks the court to reconsider this ruling. His Rule 59(e) motion is timely but he has not identified any manifest error in the court's summary judgment opinion. He suggests that if medical professionals were aware that he "wasn't receiving accu-checks before taking his insulin," they are liable for deliberate indifference. No case authority supports Plaintiff's apparent belief that his disagreement with the medical treatment he received constitutes deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. The court considered his claims in detail in its earlier ruling and stands by those conclusions. The motion to alter or amend judgment 105 is denied. Mailed notice (etv, ) (Entered: 05/10/2013)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 AdministrativeID "106" @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 OntologyLabel dispositive @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 OntologyLabel granting_motion_for_summary_judgment @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:10-cv-07136_de106 @default.