The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court *

for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as **

set forth above.

1

08-2667-pr

Blaylock v. Borden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 2 day of February, two thousand and ten. nd

Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges,

MARK R. KRAVITZ,

District Judge.

*

________________________________________________

MICHAEL BLAYLOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

- v. - (08-2667-pr)

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARRY BORDEN,

SERGEANT JOHN SWANSON, DR. JOHN

SUPPLE, AND JANE DOE, of Fishkill

Correctional Facility, in their

individual and official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

**

__________________________________________________ 

Appearing for Appellant: MICHAEL BLAYLOCK, pro se, Staten

Island, New York.
 The district court granted defendants’ motion to 1

dismiss plaintiff’s state law claim for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. The district court also denied

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. 

Plaintiff does not address these dispositions before this

Court, therefore they are deemed abandoned. See Pabon v.

Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 247 (2d Cir. 2006). Similarly,

2

Appearing for Appellee: RICHARD O. JACKSON, Assistant

Solicitor General, for Andrew M.

Cuomo, Attorney General of the

State of New York, New York, New

York.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York (Chin, J.).

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District

3 Court for the Southern District of New York be AFFIRMED.

4 Plaintiff Michael Blaylock appeals from the April 16,

5 2008 judgment of the district court, granting defendants’

6 motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint

7 with prejudice. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that

8 defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

9 rights by failing to prevent another inmate from assaulting

10 him, acting with deliberate indifference towards his medical

11 needs, and causing him to be wrongfully disciplined. He

12 also asserted a violation of New York State Correction Law §

13 137, arguing defendants failed to provide him with a safe

14 and secure environment. We presume the parties’ 1
plaintiff does not appeal his due process claim arising from

the disciplinary hearing following his altercation with his

fellow inmate. This claim too is deemed abandoned on

appeal. See id.

3

1 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

2 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 

3 This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de

4 novo. Anderson v. Recore, 446 F.3d 324, 328 (2d Cir. 2006). 

5 We construe the evidence, as we must, in the light most

6 favorable to the non-moving party. Id. On appeal,

7 plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improperly

8 granted to defendants because the district court

9 impermissibly resolved factual issues against him. We

10 disagree. The district court applied the appropriate

11 standard in granting summary judgment to defendants and

12 explicitly resolved all conflicts in the evidence in favor

13 of plaintiff.

14 As the district court noted, “not . . . every injury

15 suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another . . .

16 translates into constitutional liability for prison

17 officials . . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

18 (1994). The district court properly determined that no

19 reasonable jury could find that plaintiff’s conditions of

20 confinement posed a substantial risk of serious harm or that
4

1 defendants acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. 

2 See id.

3 The record supports the district court’s grant of

4 summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claim that he

5 was denied proper medical care. Plaintiff’s claim regarding

6 the alleged deprivation of medical care fails, as a matter

7 of law. See Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279-81 (2d

8 Cir. 2006).

9 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s remaining arguments

10 and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, for

11 substantially the reasons stated in the thorough and well

12 reasoned opinion of the lower court, the judgment of the

13 district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

14

15 For the Court

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

18

19