
    Ronnie COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn GOORD, Commissioner of Corrections, Brian Fischer, Superintendent, Lester N. Wright, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, John Perilli, M.D., Facility Health Services Director, E. Hansen, nurse administrator, J. Gu-towsko, registered nurse, Nelson Mu-thra, physician’s assistant, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    Nos. 09-2864-pr(L), 09-2932-pr(Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 26, 2010.
    Ronnie Cole, Rome, NY, Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
    Susan H. Odessky, State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, Senior Judge, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Ronnie Cole (“plaintiff’ or “Cole”), proceeding pro se, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants-appellees (“defendants”) on plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by refusing to follow all of the recommendations of a urologist who examined him. On appeal he argues that the differing medical opinions expressed by his doctors create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the ultimate course of treatment approved by prison officials amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of plaintiffs claims. The District Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants and did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and careful orders entered April 30 and May 27, 2009. See Cole v. Goord, No. 04 Civ. 8906, 2009 WL 1181295 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.30, 2009) (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment); Cole v. Goord, No. 04 Civ. 8609, Docket Entry No. 63 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2009) (denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs motion to appear at oral argument is DENIED. 
      
      . Because no separate judgment was entered in this matter, a separate judgment is deemed to have entered 150 days after the entry of the District Court's dispositive order. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 58(c)(2)(B); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii).
     