09-0258-pr
Wright v. New York State Department
of Correctional Services
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 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 20th day of April, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
___________________________________________
Troy Wright,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 09-0258-pr
New York State Department of Correctional
Services, Commissioner Goord, William E.
Phillips, Superintendent, Gayle Hoponik,
Administrative Deputy, Dr. Carl J.
Koenigsmann, Hari Chakravorty, Lester
Wright, Louis Jack Pozner, Erin Crotty,
Defendants-Appellees.
___________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: Troy Wright, pro se, Stormville, N.Y.
FOR APPELLEE: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of
New York, David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor
General, New York, N.Y.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Appellant appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit
alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent in
allowing him to be exposed to contaminated drinking water at
Green Haven Correctional Facility and in failing to provide
adequate medical care for conditions that allegedly resulted from
his consumption of that water. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification
of issues on appeal.
We have reviewed the record and relevant case law de novo,
and find that the Appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292,
300 (2d Cir. 2003) (the grant of summary judgment is reviewed de
novo); Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.
2002) (“conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not
sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion”). Appellant
presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude
that the drinking water at Green Haven was contaminated with
2
Helicobacter pylori, nor that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to the water quality or his medical needs.
Appellant argues that the magistrate judge was without
jurisdiction to enter a report and recommendation in this matter
absent the parties’ consent, and improperly denied his motions
for counsel. This matter was properly referred to a magistrate
judge for pre-trial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B); such referral does not require the
consent of the parties. And the magistrate judge did not abuse
his discretion in denying Wright's motions for the appointment of
counsel, as Appellant failed to show that his position was of
sufficient substance to require such appointment. See Ferrelli
v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003)
(motions to appoint counsel are reviewed for abuse of
discretion); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d
Cir. 1989) (in considering such a motion, a court should first
determine whether the movant’s “position [is] likely to be of
substance”). We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments
and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3