Case ID: f-appx_391/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathaniel STORMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul HARRIMAN, R.N., T. Brousseau, Inmate Grievance Supervisor, Ms. Ratliff, Inmate Grievance Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-3749-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 31, 2010.
    
      Nathaniel Storms, pro se, Romulus, N.Y.
    Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Owen Demuth, Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel, Albany, N.Y., for Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, JOHN GLEESON, District Judge.
    
      
       John Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Nathaniel Storms, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations and granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews orders granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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). The burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute exists rests on the movant. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cir.1995)). “A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmov-ing party.’ ” Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 626 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

“To defeat summary judgment ... non-moving parties ‘must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, ... ’ and they ‘may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.’ ” Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir.2005) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) and Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp., 247 F.3d 423, 428 (2d Cir.2001)).

Having conducted an independent 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 judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.