1

09- 1609- pr Br own v . Rai m on do
UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER

Ru li ng s b y sum m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a su m m ar y o r de r filed on or

after January 1, 2 0 0 7, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate P r oc ed ur e 32 .1 a nd

th is co ur t’ s Loc al Ru le 32. 1.1. Whe n ci ti ng a su m m ar y or de r in a do cu m en t f

il ed with th is court, a party must cite either the Feder al Appendix or an electronic database (withthe notati on “summ ary order ”). A par ty citing a summar y order must serve a cop y of it onany party not r epresented by cou nsel. At a stat ed term of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courth ouse, 500 P earl Str eet, in th e City of New York, on the 21 day of April, t

wo thousand t en. st
PR E SE NT: R O GE R J. M I NER ,

J OS É A. C AB R ANES , RI C HA R D C. W ES L EY , Circuit Jud ges .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x A NT ONI O B R OW N ,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt ,

-v.- No. 09-1609-pr
S ER G EA N T R

A I MONDO , D. W ELLS , C.O ., R. W ALDM AN , C.O ., R. Z I M M ERM AN , C.O ., Defenda nts-App ellees

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x CO UN SE L F OR

AP P ELLAN T: Ant onio B r own , pro se , Al den , N Y.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: Rob er t M . G ol df ar b, As s is tan t S ol

ici to r Gen er al (Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney Gene ral of the State of New Yor k; B ar bar a D. Un der

woo d, So lic it or

Gen er al; Nan cy A. Sp ieg el, Senio r

As s is tan t S ol

ici to r Gen er al, of counsel ) Alb any, NY. App eal f r om a ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e No r th er n D is tr

ict of New2

Yor k ( Gl ennT . Su dd aby, Judge ).

UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D

.
Plaintiff Antonio Br own appe als from the March 25, 2009 judgment of the Distr ict Court denying plaintiff’s motion f

or s ummary judgment and g ranting defendants’ motion for s ummary judgment. On appe al, pla intiff argues that the Dis trict Court err ed in conc luding that there wa s no question of material fact as to whether defenda nts violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Am en dm en t a nd tha t de fe nd a nts w er e e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t a s ama tte r of l aw. W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa milia r it y with the f

act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of this cas e.
We ha ve review ed ea ch of plaintiff’s claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons s tated by Magi str ate Judge R andolph S. Treece in his careful and thoughtful report and
r eco mm end ati onof

Fe bruar y 25 , 20 09, se e B ro wn v

. Rai mo ndo , 06 -CV -0 773 (N .D .N .Y. Fe bruar y 25 , 200 9) , whichth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t ad op te d, see Br

o wn v . Rai mo ndo , 06-CV-0773 (N.D.N.Y. March 25, 2009 ), the Ma rc h 2 5, 20 09 ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

. FO R T HE CO URT , Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk