Rodriguez v. Gusman

── Rodriguez v. Gusman ── Case No.: 24-2497 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General 24-2497-pr Rodriguez v. Gusman UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, AKA MARCOS RODRIGQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 24-2497-pr DR. MIKHAIL GUSMAN, FKA MIKHAIL GUZMAN, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant-Appellee, STATE OF NEW YORK, BIPIN BHAVSAR, FKA BHAVSAR BIPIN, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL  FACILITY, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Marcos Rodriguez, pro se, Coxsackie, NY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Jeffrey W. Lang, Deputy Solicitor General, Frederick A. Brodie, Assistant Solicitor General, Of Counsel, for Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Marcos Rodriguez, representing himself, appeals from the September 10, 2024 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant- Appellee Mikhail Gusman, a doctor employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Rodriguez sued Gusman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving him of constitutionally adequate medical care for prostate cancer in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We 2 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We “review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,” and will affirm only if “construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant,” we are satisfied that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Walker v. Senecal, 130 F.4th 291, 297 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation marks omitted). To establish an Eighth Amendment violation arising out of inadequate medical care and thus