Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian SCACCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy STAMP, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1697-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 10, 2012.
    Brian Scaccia, Davis, CA, pro se.
    Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Denise A. Hartman, Laura Etlinger, Assistant Solicitors General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PIERRE N. LEVAL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Brian Scaccia, pro se, appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.). Scaccia challenges rulings made by the court throughout eleven years of litigation, including adverse rulings on discovery motions, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the ease.

Scaccia challenges the district court’s (and magistrate judge’s) rulings on a series of discovery applications. We review discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. See Goetz v. Crosson, 41 F.3d 800, 805 (2d Cir.1994) (discovery rulings will be reversed only if “the action taken was improvident and affected the substantial rights of the parties” (internal quotation marks omitted)). After having reviewed Scaccia’s arguments, we find no such abuse of discretion in the district court’s resolution of the repeated discovery applications made by Scaccia.

Scaccia also challenges the district court’s (1) partial grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants and (2) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the remaining claims. We review the grant of a summary judgment de novo, examining 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). We similarly review de novo the district court’s partial grant of judgment on the pleadings. See Zherka v. Amicone, 634 F.3d 642, 644 n. 4 (2d Cir.2011). After having reviewed Scaccia’s contentions on appeal and the record of the proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinions.

We have considered Scaccia’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.