Burroughs v. Seeley

12-2635 Burroughs v. Seeley 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of 2 Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood 3 Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in 4 the City of New York, on the 15th day of May, two 5 thousand thirteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 Chief Judge, 10 ROBERT D. SACK, 11 Circuit Judge, 12 JED S. RAKOFF,* 13 District Judge. 14 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 16 17 HAROLD BURROUGHS, JR., 18 Plaintiff-Appellant, 19 20 JAMES PINE, et al., * Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Plaintiffs, 2 3 v. 12-2635 4 5 GREGORY SEELEY, SHERIFF AT GREENE 6 COUNTY, ET AL., 7 Defendants-Appellees, 8 9 AARON BEOJEKIAN, FORMER 10 CORRECTION OFFICER AT GREENE 11 COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., 12 Defendants. 13 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 15 16 17 FOR APPELLANT: Harold Burroughs, Jr., pro se, 18 Napanoch, New York. 19 20 FOR APPELLEES: Jonathan M. Bernstein, Goldberg 21 Segalla LLP, Albany, New York. 22 23 Appeal from a judgment of the United States 24 District Court for the Northern District of New York 25 (Hurd, J.). 26 27 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 28 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district 29 court is AFFIRMED. 30 31 Appellant Harold Burroughs, Jr., proceeding pro se, 32 appeals from the district court’s grant of summary 33 judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We 34 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 35 facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on 36 appeal. 37 38 We review orders granting summary judgment de novo 39 and focus on whether the district court properly 40 concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any 41 material fact and the moving party was entitled to 42 judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & 43 Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In 44 determining whether there are genuine issues of material 2 1 fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and 2 draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the 3 party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry 4 v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal 5 quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is 6 appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could 7 not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non- 8 moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 9 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 10 11 Upon such review, we conclude that Burroughs’s 12 appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons 13 stated in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough report and 14 recommendation, which the district court adopted over 15 Burroughs’s timely objection. See Decision & Order, 16 Pine v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012) 17 (ECF No. 121), adopting Report and Recommendation, Pine 18 v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (ECF 19 No. 119). We have considered all of Burroughs’s 20 remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 21 22 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 23 hereby AFFIRMED. 24 25 26 FOR THE COURT: 27 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 28 29 30 3