The Honor able Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by designation. 08-5186- pr Ver te f eui llev . H oude 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R

RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY O R D ER FI LED O N O R A FTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y FEDER A L RU LE OF AP PE L L AT E P ROCEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S CO URT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32 . 1 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D W I T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RAL A PPEN D I X O R AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE ( W I TH TH E NO TATI O N “S U M M A R Y O R D ER”) . A PA R TY CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY P ART Y NOT R EPR ES E NT E D BY C O U N SEL. Ata s ta te d t e r mof t he Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als forth e Se c ond C ir c uit , he ld at the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of Ne w Yo r k, o n t he 1 dayof M ar c h, two t hous and t e n. st PRES ENT: Amalya L . Kea rse, Pe te r W. Ha ll, Circuit Judges , J ed S. Rakoff, * District Judge.

__________________________________________ Kevin Ve rtefe uille,

Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 08-5186-pr Amy Houde, He alth Service s Administrator,

Defendant-

Appellee
.

__________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: Kevin Ve rtefe uille, pro s e , Newtown, CT.2

F OR APP ELL EE S: Ric ha rd B lum e nth a l, Atto rn e y

Ge ne ra l of

theState of

Conne c tic ut; Ann E. Ly

nch, Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, Ha

rtford, CT. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Ha ll, J. ) UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Ke vin Verte feuille, pro s e , appea ls the district court’s grant of the Def endant’ s motion for summary

judgme nt, dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleg ing a violation of his Eighth Amendme nt rights. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

of thec a se , a

nd theiss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We r e vie w o rd e rs gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud gme nt de novo and foc us on whether the district court prope rly

conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. See M iller v. W olpoff &Abramson, L.L.P. , 3 21 F .3 d 2 92 , 3 00 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ); Republic Nat’l Bank v . Delta Air Lines , 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir. 2001). “I

n deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine issues of material fa ct, we a re ‘re quired to re solve all ambiguities and draw all permissible fac tual infere nces in fa vor of the party ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.’” Te rry v . A sh c ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Stern v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. , 131 F.3d 305, 312 ( 2d Cir. 1997)). “T he
me ree xiste nc e of

a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of thepla int if

f’ s p os iti on

[is] in su ff

ic ie nt; there must be evidenc e on which [a] jury could re asonably

find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Her e, eve n construing , as we must, all the facts in Ve rtefe uille’s favor , the district court properly grante d the Def

endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt, as Ver

tefe uille failed to pre sent3

any evidenc e to contra dict the af fidavit of the De fenda

nt’s medical e x pert, who state d that Ve rt e fe uil le ’s be havio r l e a din gto t he iss ua nc e of thedis c ipl ina

ry repo rt s w a s th e re su lt o f h is antisocial per sonality

disorder a

nd impulse control disorder, not his bipolar disorde r. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judgment for substantially the same r easons a s set forth in that cour

t’s thorough and we ll-rea soned opinion. We have c onsidered a ll of Verte feuille’s c ontentions on this appeal and have found the m to be without merit. For the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby AF F IRM ED
. FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk