Castellano v. Murphy

12-4403-pr Castellano v. Murphy UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October, two thousand thirteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.* _____________________________________ JOSEPH JAMES CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 12-4403-pr PETER J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: Joseph James Castellano, pro se, Newtown, Connecticut. FOR APPELLEES: Matthew Beizer, Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut. * Judge John F. Keenan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered on November 1, 2012, is AFFIRMED. Pro se plaintiff Joseph James Castellano appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants based on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, and we will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986); Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104–05 (2d Cir. 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Castellano’s claims. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 21, 2012 decision. We have considered all of Castellano’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 2