The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as * set forth above. 

### 1 08-5520-pr Tafari v. Annetts 

### 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 CITING A SUMMAR Y ORDERIN A DOC UME NT FIL ED WIT H T HIS C OUR T , A PAR TY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE 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 29 day of January, two thousand and ten. th 

### Present: PIERRE N. LEVAL,

CHESTER J. STRAUB, RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges .

________________________________________________ INJAH TAFARI, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

- v. - (08-5520-pr) PAUL W. ANNETTS, C.O. KERN, CATHERINE JACOBSEN, JOSEPH LURENZ, DOE CHILL, Defendants-Appellees , DAVID L. MILLER, ROSEMARIE WENDLAND, SHERYL BUTLER, WILLIAM D. BROWN, KAREN LAFOLT, COMMISSIONER GLENN S. GOORD, RICHARD ROY, JOHN W. CARVILL, CHARLES M. DEVANE, JOHN H. NUTTALL, PETER HEALY, THOMAS POOLE, JEAN YOST, S. ZENZEN, LUCIEN J. LECLAIRE JR., ROCHE FRANK, ZVI JACOB, ARTHUR MORGENSTERN, Defendants . *



### __________________________________________________

### 2

For Appellant: INJAH TAFARI, pro se , Dannemora, New York. For Appellee: ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York ; BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Solicitor General ; MICHAEL S. BELOHLAVEK, Senior Counsel ; ROBERT C. WEISZ, Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel , New York, New York. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J. , Peck, M.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, Injah Tafari, pro se and in forma pauperis , 5 appeals from a judgment of the district court granting 6 summary judgment to defendants, employees of the New York 7 State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”). 8 Plaintiff also appeals an order denying his motion for a 9 default judgment against defendants. Plaintiff alleges 10 violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and 11 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 12 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 13 Act. 14 Plaintiff claims that the named DOCS employees failed 15 to fully accommodate his religious practices. Specifically,

### 3 1 he contends that defendants failed to transfer him to the 2 Green Haven Correctional Facility, where he could obtain 3 kosher food different from the kosher food with which he is 4 currently provided, and that defendants failed to provide 5 him with kosher meals during transit between correctional 6 facilities on certain occasions. We presume the parties’ 7 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 8 history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 9 We review de novo the grant of a motion for summary 10 judgment. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP , 321 F.3d 292, 11 300 (2d Cir. 2003). This Court draws all inferences in 12 favor of the nonmoving party, Baker v. Home Depot , 445 F.3d 13 541, 543 (2d Cir. 2006); however, “conclusory statements or 14 mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary 15 judgment motion.” Davis v. New York , 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d 16 Cir. 2002). On October 2, 2008, the district court granted 17 summary judgment to defendants and adopted, in its entirety, 18 the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. The 19 district court properly determined that defendants were 20 entitled to summary judgment. We affirm for substantially 21 the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough Report 22 and Recommendation of June 12, 2008.

### 4 1 We have considered plaintiff’s challenge to the denial 2 of his motion for default judgment, and find it to be 3 unavailing. See Shah v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Civil Serv. , 4 168 F.3d 610, 615 (2d Cir. 1999). Our disposition of this 5 matter reflects “our oft-stated preference for resolving 6 disputes on the merits.” Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara , 10 7 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1993). 8 The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments 9 and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the 10 judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED . 11 12 For the Court 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14 15 16