12-2635 Burroughs v. Seeley



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDEN TIAL 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** 1 **Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood** 2 **Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in** 3 **the City of New York, on the 15 th** **day of May, two** 4 **thousand thirteen.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **Chief Judge**, 9 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 10 **Circuit Judge**, 11 **JED S. RAKOFF,** ***** 12 **District Judge**

. 13 14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 15 16 **HAROLD BURROUGHS, JR.,** 17 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  18 19 **JAMES PINE, et al. ,**  20

*Judge Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.**Plaintiffs ,**  1 2 **v. 12-2635** 3 4 **GREGORY SEELEY, SHERIFF AT GREENE** 5 **COUNTY, ET AL. ,**  6 **Defendants-Appellees ,**  7 8 **AARON BEOJEKIAN, FORMER** 9 **CORRECTION OFFICER AT GREENE** 10 **COUNTY JAIL, ET AL. ,**  11 **Defendants**
**.** 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 14 15 16 **FOR APPELLANT:** Harold Burroughs, Jr., pro se , 17 Napanoch, New York. 18 19 **FOR APPELLEES:** Jonathan M. Bernstein, Goldberg 20 Segalla LLP, Albany, New York. 21 22 Appeal from a judgment of the United States 23 District Court for the Northern District of New York 24 (Hurd, J. ). 25 26 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,** 27 **ADJUDGED, AND DECREED** that the judgment of the district 28 court is**AFFIRMED**

. 29 30 Appellant Harold Burroughs, Jr., proceeding pro se
, 31 appeals from the district court’s grant of summary 32 judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We 33 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 34 facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on 35 appeal. 36 37 We review orders granting summary judgment de novo 38 and focus on whether the district court properly 39 concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any 40 material fact and the moving party was entitled to 41 judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & 42 Abramson, LLP , 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In 43 determining whether there are genuine issues of material 44

2fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and 1 draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the 2 party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry 3 v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal 4 quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is 5 appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could 6 not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non7 moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 8 Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 9 10 Upon such review, we conclude that Burroughs’s 11 appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons 12 stated in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough report and 13 recommendation, which the district court adopted over 14 Burroughs’s timely objection. SeeDecision & Order, 15 Pine v. Seeley , No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012) 16 (ECF No. 121), adoptingReport and Recommendation, Pine 17 v. Seeley , No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (ECF 18 No. 119). We have considered all of Burroughs’s 19 remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 20 21 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 22 hereby **AFFIRMED**

. 23 24 25 FOR THE COURT: 26 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 27 28 29 30

3