1 11-3716-pr Rodriguez v. Diaz

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 citi ng a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appe ndix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary or der 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 11 th day of December, two thousand and twelve.

PRESENT:

J OSÉ A. C ABRANES
, R EENA R AGGI
, P ETER W. H ALL
,
Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

N ELSON R ODRIGUEZ
,
Plaintiff-Appellant

,
v. No. 11-3716-pr

H ECTOR L. D IAZ
, Chief Clerk, C HARLOTTE D OE , Assistant Clerk, J OHN J AMES
, Assistant Clerk of the Bronx County Supreme Court,

Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________________________________

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as shown above.2 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Nelson Rodriguez, pro se , Auburn, New York.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: 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.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

.
In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plainti ff-appellant Nelson Rodriguez, who is currently incarcerated and has proceeded pro se throughout this litigation, allege s that the defendants-appellees, who are state-court clerk’s office personnel, depriv ed 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 th e 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 de fendants for substantially the reasons stated in its well-reasoned order of August 3, 2011. Ro driguez 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 de fendants took reasonable steps to assist Rodriguez as best they could in light of the informati on available to them at the relevant times.3 CONCLUSION

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

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk