The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This case is before the court for consideration of the defendant, Funk's, motion for summary judgment, d/e 58 and the plaintiff's response, d/e 66.
The defendant is a physician at the Pontiac Correctional Center who treated the plaintiff for an eye condition and afforded consultation with another physician. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition in the plaintiff's left eye and that as a result the plaintiff suffered damages.
The following undisputed facts are taken from the defendant's motion and are not contradicted except by the conclusory allegations of the defendant's response.
1. Plaintiff was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center from September of 2002 through October 27, 2004. (See Jones Deposition, p.3.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint against Dr. Funk is based upon Dr. Funk's failure to remove a growth from the Plaintiff's left eye. (See Jones Deposition, p. 10).
3. Plaintiff is also claiming that Dr. Funk discriminated against him because he allegedly approved the removal of a mole from another inmate. (See Jones Deposition, pp. 11-12);
4. During the relevant time frame, Plaintiff had a growth on his left eye. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records.
5. Plaintiff presented to the healthcare unit at the Pontiac Correctional Center complaining of the growth in his eye in September of 2002. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records).
6. Melvin Jones was given prescription medication for the itching and burning in his eye in October 2002. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records).
7. When these did not assist the Plaintiff with his problem, Dr. Funk referred the Plaintiff to Dr. Joseph Harman at the Gailey Eye Clinic. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records).
8. Dr. Harman biopsied the Plaintiff's growth and removed as much of the growth as he could without creating scar tissue. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records).
9. The growth in Plaintiff's eye was found not to be malignant. (See Affidavit of Dr. Funk and accompanying medical records).
10. Dr. Funk did not recommend removing the growth in its entirety based upon his conversations with Dr. Harman and his own educational training and background. (See Affidavit ...