complaint sets out a cognizable deliberate indifference claim. This is so because the standard to show “deliberate indifference” is substantially the same as the standard to show “reckless or callous indifference. Thomas v. Luzerne Cnty. Corr. Facility, 310 F.Supp.2d 718, 722 (M.D. Pa. 2004) (permitting punitive damages claim because the plaintiff alleged defendant’s conduct “was intentional, willful and done with deliberate indifference.”); Walker v. Brooks, No. 07-280, 2009 WL 3183051 at *9 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2009) (“The standard to show ‘callous indifference’ to a federally protected right has been found to be essentially the same standard as ‘deliberate indifference’ under the Eighth Amendment.”); Bermudez v. City ofPhila., No. 06-4701, 2007 WL 1816469 at *3 (E.D.Pa. June 21, 2007) (<HOLDING>).- Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient
holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference holding that punitive damages may be awarded under  1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed