12-2635

Burroughs v. Seeley

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of

2 Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood

3 Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in

the City of New York, on the 15th 4 day of May, two

5 thousand thirteen.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 DENNIS JACOBS,

9 Chief Judge,

10 ROBERT D. SACK,

11 Circuit Judge,

JED S. RAKOFF,* 12

13 District Judge.

14

15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

16

17 HAROLD BURROUGHS, JR.,

18 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

19

20 JAMES PINE, et al.,

*

Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by

designation.
1 Plaintiffs,

2

3 v. 12-2635

4

5 GREGORY SEELEY, SHERIFF AT GREENE

6 COUNTY, ET AL.,

7 Defendants-Appellees,

8

9 AARON BEOJEKIAN, FORMER

10 CORRECTION OFFICER AT GREENE

11 COUNTY JAIL, ET AL.,

12 Defendants.

13

14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

15

16

17 FOR APPELLANT: Harold Burroughs, Jr., pro se,

18 Napanoch, New York.

19

20 FOR APPELLEES: Jonathan M. Bernstein, Goldberg

21 Segalla LLP, Albany, New York. 

22

23 Appeal from a judgment of the United States

24 District Court for the Northern District of New York

25 (Hurd, J.).

26

27 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

28 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district

29 court is AFFIRMED.

30

31 Appellant Harold Burroughs, Jr., proceeding pro se,

32 appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

33 judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

34 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

35 facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on

36 appeal.

37

38 We review orders granting summary judgment de novo

39 and focus on whether the district court properly

40 concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any

41 material fact and the moving party was entitled to

42 judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff &

43 Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In

44 determining whether there are genuine issues of material

2
1 fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and

2 draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the

3 party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry

4 v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal

5 quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is

6 appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could

7 not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non8 moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.

9 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

10

11 Upon such review, we conclude that Burroughs’s

12 appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons

13 stated in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough report and

14 recommendation, which the district court adopted over

15 Burroughs’s timely objection. See Decision & Order,

16 Pine v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012)

17 (ECF No. 121), adopting Report and Recommendation, Pine

18 v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (ECF

19 No. 119). We have considered all of Burroughs’s

20 remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

21

22 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

23 hereby AFFIRMED.

24

25

26 FOR THE COURT:

27 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

28

29

30

3