Th e H on ora ble Ed ward R . K orm an , o f t

he Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he Ea ste rn * Districtof New York, sitting by designat ion. 09-0722-pr Melendez v. Wilson 

### UNI TED ST ATES COURT OF APP EALS

FO R TH E SE C O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R

RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F ECT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF AP PE LLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D OCUM ENT F I LE D W I TH T HI S COURT , A P ARTY M US T C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y of New York, on the 28 day of September, two thousand ten.

th PRESENT : ROBER T A. KATZ MANN,

DENNYCHIN, Ci rcu it J ud ges , EDWARD R. K ORMAN, * Di str ict Ju dge.

__________________________________________ MICHAEL MELEN DEZ,

Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 09-0722-pr MITCHELL, ALL EN, and J. MCDONA LD,

De fen da nts -A

pp ellee s.

__________________________________________2

FOR APP ELLANT: Michael M elendez, pro s e , Attica, NY. FOR APP ELLEES: Andrew M. Cuom o, Attorney General of the State of New York; Barbara D . Und erw oo d, So lic ito r G en era l; N an cyA. Sp ieg el, Senior Assist ant Solici tor General ; Zainab A. Chaudhry, Assist ant So lic ito r G en era l ( on thebr ief ), Albany, NY.
Appeal from a judgm ent of the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Nort hern Distri ct of New York (Hood, J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERA TION IT IS HEREBYORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED
. Appellant Mi chael Mel endez, pro s e , appeals the judgment of the districtcourt grant ing the Defendants’ motion for summ ary judgment, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging vi olations of his Fi rst Amendm ent right s. We assum e the part ies’ familiarit y with the
un de rly ingfa cts , th e p roc ed ura l hi sto ry o f t

he cas e, an d th e is su es o n a pp eal
. W e re vie w o rde rs g rantin g s um m ary jud gm ent deno vo an d f

oc us on wh eth er the dis tri ct court proper ly concluded t hat there was no genuine issue as to any material factand the moving party was enti tled to j udgment as a m atter of law. See Mill er v. Wolpof f & Abramson, L.L.P. , 32 1 F .3 d 2 92 , 3 00 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 3); Re

pu bli c N at’ l B an k v. De lta Ai rli nes , 2 63 F. 3d 42 , 4 6 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ); Al lst

ateIns . C o. v. Maz zo la , 1 75 F. 3d

25 5, 25 8 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ). I n d ete rm ini ng wh eth er the re are g enuin e is su es o f m ate ria l f act , w e ar e “r eq

uir ed to r eso lve all am

biguit ies an d d

rawall pe rm iss ibl e f

act ua l in fe ren ces in f

av or o f t he partyag ain st who m

summ ary jud gm ent is so ug ht. ” Te rry v. As hc ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (i nternal quot ation marks omitted). However, “[t]he m ere exist ence of a scinti lla of evidence i n support of the plai ntiff’s position will be insufficient ; there must be evidenc e on which the jury could rea so na bly find for the3

pla int if f. ” Jef fre ys v . C ity of N ew Yo rk, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005) (quot ing An de rso n v . Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (2d Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in Jef fre ys ). Thus, a
no nm ov ingparty“m

us t do m ore than s im

ply sh owthat th ere is s om e m eta phys ica l do ub t as to the m ate ria l f

act s, ” Matsushit a Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 4 75 U. S. 57 4, 58 6 (1 98 6), and cannot “re ly on conclusory allegat ions or unsubst antiate d speculati on,” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Express Corp. , 2 47 F. 3d

42 3, 42 8 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ) (i nte rna l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed ). Al tho ug h M ele nd ez a sse rts that th e d ist ric t co urt fa ile d to co ns ide r vario us dis puted material facts rel evant to his claims, our review of the rec ord reveal s no such error
. Se e Je ffreys , 42 6 F .3 d at 55 4 (i n re vie wi ngthe dis tri ct c ourt’ s g rant of summ ary jud gm ent, “ [o ]u

r in qu iry fo cu ses on

wh eth er the Di str ict

Co urt err ed in c on clu din g, up on

rev iewof

the rec ord

as a wh ole , that ther e were no genuine iss ue s o f m ate ria l f act [i .e ., ] .
. . that ev enaf

ter drawi ng all inf

ere nc es in t he lig ht m os t f

av ora ble to [ the pla int if

f] , n o re aso na

ble jur y c ou ld h av e is su ed

a v erd ict in h is favo r”) (em

ph asi s in ori gin al) . M ele nd ez f

ail ed to p rod uc e any in de pe nd ent ev ide nc e corroborat ing his unsupport ed allegat ions that t he Defendants intent ionally di scarded or destroyed hi s personal pr operty in r etalia tion for him filing a complaint against a correct ions of fi cer at the fa cil ityin whic h h e w as i nc arc erated . In co ntr ast , th e D ef

en dants pre sented
su bs tantia l ev ide nc e th at M ele nd ez’ s p rop erty w as n ot i n f act de str oy ed , o r, e ve n if

it w as, that the specific Defendants whom Melendez named in his complaint had nei ther the means nor the opportunity t o do so. Similarly, Melende z failed to pre sent any cre dible evide nce that t he Defendants intenti onally disc arded or dest royed his gri evances as a means of retali ation; i ndeed, that Me len de z su cce ssf

ull y f ile d g rie vanc es d

uri ng the pe rio d in

wh ich he all eg ed

the De fe nd ants retali ated agains t him obviates any cir cumstantial inference that the di fficulties he may have
su ff ere d in su bm itt inga p art icu lar

gri ev an ce w ere int entio na llycau sed bythe De fe nd ants.4 Finally, to t he extent Me lendez chal lenges the di strictcourt’s di scovery order s, we review those or ders for abuse of discr etion, see In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Li tig. , 517 F.3d 76, 102 (2d Cir. 2008), and find none. The re cord indica tes thatthe distr ict courtgave ad eq uate c on sid eratio n to Mel en de z’s dis co ve ry r eq ue sts , and its ref us al t o o rde r th e D ef

en dants to p rod uc e co pie s o f a ll i nm ate gri ev an ces f ile d a ga ins t th em

co nc ern ingdis car de d o r de str oy ed pe rso na l pr op erty w as r eas on ab le g ive n th e unb ound ed sco pe of thi s re qu est
. W e have consider ed all of Melende z’s remaining clai ms and f ound them to be without
m eri t; a cco rdi ng ly, the re i s n o b asi s u po n whic h to ch all en ge the dis tri ct c ourt’ s ju dg m ent. For the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis hereby AFFIRMED
.

FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk of Co urt