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 F OR 

## T HE 

## S ECOND 

## C IRCUIT 

## SUMMARY ORDER

R ULI NGS BY SU MMA RY ORD ER DO NOT HAVE PRE CED ENT IAL EF FEC T . C ITA TIO N T O ASU MMA RY ORD ER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMI TTE D AND IS GOV ERN ED BY F EDE RAL RULE OF A PPE LLA TE P ROC EDU RE 32.1 AN D T HIS C OUR T ’ S L OCA L RULE 32.1.1. W HEN CIT ING A SUMMAR Y O RDE R I N ADO CUM ENT FI LED WI TH THI S C OUR T , A PAR TY MUST CITE E ITH ER THE F EDE RAL A PPE NDI X O R AN ELE CTR ONI C D ATABAS E ( WIT H T HE NOT ATI ON “ SUMMAR Y O RDE R ”). APA RTY CI TIN G ASU MMA RY ORD ER MUS T S ERV E ACO PY OF IT ON ANY PA RTY NO T R EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL .



## 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