DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Pro se Plaintiff Raymond Jackson brings this civil rights action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. ECF No. 16 (“Amended Complaint”). Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at the Five Points Correctional Facility (“Five Points”), Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they refused to treat his Hepatitis C infection for four years. ECF No. 16 at 2-4. On March 2, 2020, following completion of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 54. Despite being provided with notice that his case could be dismissed if he filed no response, ECF No. 54-2, Plaintiff has filed no papers in opposition. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). While the court must view the inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), a party may not “rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986). The non-moving party may defeat a summary judgment motion by making a showing sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). However, “mere conclusory allegations or denials” are not evidence and cannot by themselves create a genuine issue of material fact where none would otherwise exist. Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his submissions a re read liberally and interpreted “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, proceeding pro se does not relieve a litigant from the usual summary judgment requirements. See Wolfson v. Bruno, 844 F. Supp. 2d 348, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff’s Allegations The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff had suffered from hepatitis C for thirty years when he reported his condition to Defendant Haimes in 2014 and noted further that it was causing him high fevers, loss of sleep, and extreme pain. ECF No. 16 1. After examination by a gastrointestinal specialist, “triple drug” treatment was recommended. Id. 3. Defendant Haimes forwarded this recommendation to the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), Defendant Koenigsmann. Id. 4. Defendant Koenigsmann refused, saying that the treatment would not be afforded until Plaintiff reached level four stage fibrosis, and was thus “life threateningly ill.” Id.
5-6. Plaintiff’s grievances were denied, and the treatment was not provided. Id.
