Yeldon v. Hogan

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