MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Kevin Thurmond (“Plaintiff”), formerly incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility (“Woodbourne”) and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action on January 8, 2018 against Dr. Avion Thomas-Walsh (“Walsh”) and Dr. Frederick Bernstein (“Bernstein,” and together, “Defendants”). (Doc. 2, “Compl.”). Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment by switching his skincare medication in response to him filing a grievance against Walsh.1 Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on March 18, 2022, after the close of discovery and in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court. (Doc. 117; Doc. 118, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 119, “Powers Decl.”; Doc. 120, “56.1″). Plaintiff, on April 22, 2022, filed a declaration in opposition to Defendants’ motion (Doc. 123) alongside his responses to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Doc. 122, “Pltf. 56.1″).2 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was fully submitted upon the filing of their reply brief on April 29, 2022. (Doc. 124, “Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The Court recites the facts herein only to the extent necessary to adjudicate the extant motion and draws them from: (i) the Complaint; (ii) Defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement; (iii) Plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 Responses and the exhibits annexed thereto;3 and (iv) the Declaration of Janice Powers along with the exhibits annexed thereto (Doc. 117, “Powers Decl.”), which includes, inter alia: Defendants’ sworn affidavits, drug labels for Vistaril and Atarax, Plaintiff’s medical records, decisions on Plaintiff’s grievances, and Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. Plaintiff’s first relevant visit with Walsh occurred on December 24, 2013 while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”). (Pltf. 56.1 at 23). Walsh, during that visit, prescribed Plaintiff Vistaril for “often and constant” itching as well as hives. (Id.). Walsh also ordered several tests on Plaintiff’s blood samples. (Id.). Vistaril is used to treat various skin conditions as well as anxiety and physicians are recommended to periodically reassess its usefulness in individual patients. (Powers Decl., Ex. A-2). Potential adverse reactions include hallucinations and the worsening of skin conditions. (Id.). The tests ordered by Walsh were administered on January 14, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a grievance against Walsh on February 24, 2014, alleging that a blood test was taken without his consent. (Powers Decl., Ex. D). Walsh saw Plaintiff on three other occasions (March 24, 2014, April 3, 2014, and May 8, 2014) before switching Plaintiff’s prescription for his itching to Atarax on May 21, 2014. (Pltf. 56.1 at 21; 56.1 3). Atarax is used to treat nearly identical conditions as Vistaril but has only mild potential adverse reactions and does not create the risk of worsening skin conditions or hallucinations. (Powers Decl., Ex. A-2). Moreover, although disputed by Plaintiff, Walsh submits that “in the medical community, there is an understanding that Vistaril is used for anxiety whereas Atarax is used for the physical symptoms of itching because it lacks the potential for unwanted side effects of hallucinations and a return of the exact hives one is trying to be rid of.” (Powers Decl., Ex. A). Plaintiff visited Walsh again on May 29, 2014, complaining that Atarax was not working and requesting to be put back on Vistaril. (56.1 4). Walsh declined to switch him back. (Id.
5-6). Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that he consistently failed to take his Atarax prescription. (Powers Decl, Ex. B). Plaintiff filed another grievance against Walsh on June 5, 2014, relating to the switch in medications. (Powers Decl., Ex. E). Bernstein, Walsh’s supervisor, wrote to Plaintiff on June 12, 2014, informing him that his prescription for Atarax was in fact the “correct medication.” (Powers. Decl., Ex. C-1). Plaintiff went to see Walsh for the final time on July 18, 2014, before refusing to consult with her again. (56.1 10). Bernstein attended that visit. (Powers Decl., Ex. F). Plaintiff thereafter saw only different medical providers,4 including a dermatologist to whom Walsh had referred him. (56.1
