*

 The Honorable Stefan R. Underhill, of the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut, sitting by designation. 

1

09-1007-pr

Amaker v. Kelley

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders 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 8th day of November, two thousand and ten.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges,

STEFAN R. UNDERHILL,

District Judge.*

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANTHONY AMAKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 -v.- No. 09-1007-pr

 

T. KELLEY, J. LANDRY, P. T. JUSTINE, T.G. EGAN, D. A.

SENKOWSKI, M. ALLARD, R. GIRDICH, G. S. GOORD, J.

WOOD, DOCTOR I. ELLEN, J. MITCHELL, H. WORLEY,

DOCTOR L. N. WRIGHT, S. NYE, M. MCKINNON, R. RIVERS,

L. CORYER, A. PAVONE, L. CAYEA, D. ARMITAGE, J. CAREY,

P. W. ANNETTS, R. RIVERA, E. AIKEN, S. GIDEON, R.

LINCOLN, D. LINSLEY, C. O. GORDON, J. REYELL, D.

CHAMPAGNE, J. KELSH, W. CARTER, F. BUSHEY, CHO

PHILLIP, CHO DROM, A.J. ANNUCCI, L.J. LECLAIR, D.
** The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption of this action to conform

to the caption listed above.

2

LACLAIR, T. L. RICKS, A. BOUCAUD, H. PERRY, B. BANILER,

R. LAMORA, E. LIBERTY, G. RONSOM, R. MAYNARD, C.

DAGGETT, D. SELSKY, K. M. LAPP, R. SEARS, J. BABBIE, SGT.

CHAMPAGNE, DOCTOR K. LEE, R. VAUGHAN, M. NISOFF,

Defendants-Appellants,

O. MAYO,

Defendant.**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Anthony Amaker, pro se, Pine City, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Julia Sheridan, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew 

M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Barabara D.

Underwood, Solicitor General, and Nancy. A

Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, on the

brief), Office of the Attorney General, State of New

York, Albany, NY.

Appeal from a February 10, 2009, judgment of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED. 

Incarcerated plaintiff-appellant Anthony Amaker, proceeding pro se, appeals from the grant

of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants, fifty-six employees of the New York

State Department of Corrections, on Amaker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Amaker’s complaint,

liberally construed, alleges that defendants’ conduct while Amaker was incarcerated at Clinton

Correctional Facility and Upstate Correctional Facility violated his rights under the First, Fourth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We assume the parties’

familiarity with the underling facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the decision of the District Court to grant summary judgment and will

affirm, only if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here,

Amaker), reveals no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 535-36 (2d Cir. 2010). 

Having conducted a de novo review, we hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the District
3

Court, see Amaker v. Kelley, No. 01-CV-877 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009) (adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety), that—to the extent that Amaker’s

complaint contains well-pleaded allegations against defendants at all—defendants are entitled to

summary judgment as a matter of law. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of Amaker’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without

merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court