Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant-prison official's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner's section 1983 action alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Plaintiff generally cannot rely on allegations or denials in his complaint, when filing affidavit opposing properly supported motion for summary judgment, especially where, as here, plaintiff is represented by counsel and has engaged in significant discovery. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly invoke sham-affidavit rule to disregard plaintiff's affidavit, where it merely recited allegations in his amended complaint, and where plaintiff's affidavit had contradicted major points in plaintiff's prior deposition testimony. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. improperly excluded affidavit submitted by defendant's mother, who had not made prior conflicting sworn statement, any error was harmless, where substance of mother's affidavit added nothing of importance to case. As to merits of plaintiff's claim, record did not factually support claim that defendant had unreasonably delayed plaintiff's receipt of antibiotics or additional pain medication.
