November 8, 2010
ANTHONY AMAKER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
T. KELLEY, J. LANDRY, P. T. JUSTINE, T.G. EGAN, D. A. SENKOWSKI, M. ALLARD, R. GIRDICH, G. S. GOORD, J. WOOD, DOCTOR I. ELLEN, J. MITCHELL, H. WORLEY, DOCTOR L. N. WRIGHT, S. NYE, M. MCKINNON, R. RIVERS, L. CORYER, A. PAVONE, L. CAYEA, D. ARMITAGE, J. CAREY, P. W. ANNETTS, R. RIVERA, E. AIKEN, S. GIDEON, R. LINCOLN, D. LINSLEY, C. O. GORDON, J. REYELL, D. CHAMPAGNE, J. KELSH, W. CARTER, F. BUSHEY, CHO PHILLIP, CHO DROM, A.J. ANNUCCI, L.J. LECLAIR, D. LACLAIR, T. L. RICKS, A. BOUCAUD, H. PERRY, B. BANILER, R. LAMORA, E. LIBERTY, G. RONSOM, R. MAYNARD, C. DAGGETT, D. SELSKY, K. M. LAPP, R. SEARS, J. BABBIE, SGT. CHAMPAGNE, DOCTOR K. LEE, R. VAUGHAN, M. NISOFF, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, O. MAYO, DEFENDANT.*FN2
Appeal from a February 10, 2009, judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Judge).
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of November, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT: JOSE A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.*fn1
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.
Incarcerated plaintiff-appellant Anthony Amaker, proceeding pro se, appeals from the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants, fifty-six employees of the New York State Department of Corrections, on Amaker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Amaker's complaint, liberally construed, alleges that defendants' conduct while Amaker was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility and Upstate Correctional Facility violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underling facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We review de novo the decision of the District Court to grant summary judgment and will affirm, only if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here, Amaker), reveals no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 535-36 (2d Cir. 2010). Having conducted a de novo review, we hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, see Amaker v. Kelley, No. 01-CV-877 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009) (adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety), that--to the extent that Amaker's complaint contains well-pleaded allegations against defendants at all--defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
We have considered each of Amaker's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk ...
Buy This Entire Record For