10-1129-pr
Yeldon v. Hogan
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1.
W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX 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 .
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 12 th day of November, two thousand and ten.
5
6 PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12
13 WILLIE JAMES YELDON,
14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.- 10-1129-pr
18
19 MICHAEL HOGAN, DONALD SAWYER, JEFFREY
20 AMODON, BARBARA STAPHOLZ, MAUREEN ADAMS,
21 CHARMAINE BILL, SAM LILLY, TERRIMAX
22 MILLIAN, JEFFREY NORWICKI, MARY BULLIVANT,
23
24 Defendants-Appellees.
25
26
27
1 FOR APPELLANT: WILLIE JAMES YELDON, pro se, Marcy, N.Y.
2
3 FOR APPELLEE: NANCY A. SPIEGEL, Senior Assistant
4 Solicitor General, ANDREW B. AYERS,
5 Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel,
6 (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General,
7 on the brief), for Andrew M. Cuomo,
8 Attorney General of the State of New
9 York, Albany, N.Y.
10
11 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
12 Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.).
13
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
16 AFFIRMED.
17 Appellant Willie James Yeldon, pro se, appeals from a
18 judgment of the United States District Court for the
19 Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), which granted
20 the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed
21 Yeldon’s complaint in its entirety. We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
23 history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
24 We review an order granting summary judgment de novo
25 and ask whether the district court properly concluded that
26 there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the
27 moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
28 See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300
2
1 (2d Cir. 2003). To that end, we are “required to resolve
2 all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences
3 in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is
4 sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.
5 2003) (quotation marks omitted). However, "conclusory
6 statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to
7 defeat a summary judgment motion." Davis v. New York, 316
8 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).
9 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of
10 the record, we affirm the district court's judgment for
11 substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate
12 judge in his thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have
13 considered Yeldon’s arguments on appeal and have found them
14 to be without merit.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
16 court is hereby AFFIRMED.
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
3