WRIGHT v. GENOVESE, 415 Fed.Appx. 313 (2nd Cir. 2011)

Alyton WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maryann GENOVESE, Doctor, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Cappulati, Nurse, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Barringer, Nurse, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Robert Capone, Medicine/Consultant Specialist, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Jane Doe, Nurse, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Stuart Miller, Doctor, Albany Medical Center, Jane Houghton, Medical Doctor, Albany Medical Center, Diane Finly, Nurse, Albany Medical Center, Lester N. Wright, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Pedro Diaz, Regional Health Services Administrator, Department of Correctional Services, Justin Pendergrast,

Page 314

Regional Health Services Administrator at Capital Cardiology Associates, Albany Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.[*]

No. 10-1013-pr.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 23, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ANDDECREED that the judgment of the district court beAFFIRMED.

Alyton Wright, Auburn, N.Y., pro se.

Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel), for Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y., Kathleen M. Ryan, D’Agostino, Krackeler, Maguire Cardona, P.C., Menands, N.Y., for Appellees.

PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN,[**] District Judge.

[**] The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Alyton Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint alleging that the defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

On appeal, Appellant argues only that two of the defendants, Dr. Maryann Genovese and Dr. Robert Capone, violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care when they failed to prescribe him effective pain medication after heart surgery. Accordingly, he has abandoned his claims against the remaining defendants, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment claim and other Eighth Amendment claims. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2000) (“When a litigant-including pro se litigant — raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, the issue is abandoned.”).

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo
and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law See Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.”Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate

Page 315

judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, which the district court adopted.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.