Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelson RODRIGUEZ, Plaintif-Appellant, v. Hector L. DIAZ, Chief Clerk, Charlotte Doe, Assistant Clerk, John James, Assistant Clerk of the Bronx County Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 11-3716-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 11, 2012.
    
      Nelson Rodriguez, Auburn, NY, pro se.
    David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff-appellant Nelson Rodriguez, who is currently incarcerated and has proceeded pro se throughout this litigation, alleges that the defendants-appellees, who are state-court clerk’s office personnel, deprived him of his constitutional right of access to court. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Rodriguez had failed to provide evidence “of any intentional or willful conduct by the Defendants that was calculated to deprive him of access to court.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 5. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, as well as the issues on appeal.

Having reviewed the record de novo and construed all evidence in the record in favor of Rodriguez, see Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003), we affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants for substantially the reasons stated in its well-reasoned order of August 3, 2011. Rodriguez has not presented any evidence that the defendants did anything wrong, much less violated his federal constitutional rights. To the contrary, all the evidence in the record indicates that the defendants took reasonable steps to assist Rodriguez as best they could in light of the information available to them at the relevant times.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Rodriguez’s other arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.