Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David NIEVES, Officer, Norwalk Police Department, Jeff P. Proudfoot, Officer, Norwalk Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 08-5535-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 14, 2010.
    David Simmons, pro se, S. Norwalk, CT, for Appellant.
    M. Jeffrey Spahr Esq., Norwalk Corporation Counsel, Norwalk, CT, for Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, WALKER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is instructed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant David Simmons, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J.) granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and determines whether the district court properly concluded there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202-03 (2d Cir.1995). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having reviewed Appellant’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its opinion. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.