objective.’ Poe, 282 F.3d at 139 (quoting County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at 845-46, 118 S.Ct. 1708). I find that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to show a constitutional violation. Dr. Tan did not violate plaintiffs Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment rights by performing a brief examination of plaintiff in the presence of his cellmate so as to plan an appropriate course of treatment. Under these circumstances, the examination did not seriously deprive plaintiff of “a basic human need.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392. The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment does not guarantee that plaintiff will receive any and all medical care in total privacy. See Vergara v. Vogliano, No. 95 Civ. 4513, 1997 WL 86388, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, prisoner’s have the right to
holding that plaintiff failed to state a  1983 claim based on the eighth amendment when he refused to be treated medically in the presence of corrections officers on the grounds that he was not entitled to receive medical treatment in complete privacy holding that even though the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a meaningful injury he was nevertheless entitled to nominal damages for the defendants violation of his first amendment rights holding that allegations of several instances of flawed medical treatment state a claim under eighth amendment holding that the defendant objected to the evidence on only one ground thus he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983