T he H onor abl e Evan J

. W al l ach of t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of I nt er nat i ona l Tra de, s i t t i ng by des i gn at i on. *

T he Cl er k of

C our t i s di r ect ed t o a m end t he o ff i ci al ca pt i on t o co nf

or m t o t he l i s t i ng of

t he p ar t i es s t at ed ** abo ve. 1 08- 5541- pr W arre n v . G oo rd 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 su m m ar

y o r de r do no t ha

ve 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

af te r J a nu a ry 1, 2007, is perm itted an d is governed b y Federal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and this court ’s Local Rule 32.1.1
. When citing a summary or der in a d ocument fil ed wi th this co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel.
Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e second day of March two t housand and t en. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER ,

Circuit Jud ges , E V A N J. W

ALL ACH , Judge .*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x VI N CE N T W

AR R EN , Pl

aint iff -A ppella nt ,

v. No. 08-5541-pr
G L EN N G O O RD , W. P H I LLI PS , J OHN D OE , T H O M AS G. E AGEN , G ERA L D G UI NEY , in di

vid ually an d i n his of

fi cial capa cit y as Dep ut

y of Secu r it y of Gr eenHav en an d D .O .C.S ., Defenda nts-App ellees .**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F

- AP P ELLAN T: Vin cen t Warr en, pro se, P in e Cit y, N Y.
FOR DEF ENDANTS-APP ELL EES: Dav idLa wr enc e I I I , 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, Mich ael B elo hl avek , Se ni or Cou ns el, on the brief

), Of fi ce o f the A tt orney

Gen er al o f the S tat e of

New Yor k, N ew Yo r k, N Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Dis trict of New Yor k ( Rich ar d J . H ol

well , Judge ).

UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED th at the j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF F IRME D

. Plaintiff-appellant Vinc ent Wa rren (“Warren” or “plaintiff”) appea ls fr om a judgment of the Distr ict Court dated Se ptember 30, 2008, g ranting summary judgment to the defendants, who are emp lo yees of

th e New Yor k St ate Dep ar tm ent of Corr ect io nal Ser vic es (“ def

end ant s ”) , o n p lai nt

if f’ s clai m b r ought

pu r s uan t t o 4 2 U. S.C. § 19 83. Pl ain ti ff als o ap peal s fr omth e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s denial of hi s mo ti onto ame ndhi s com pl ain t. Pl ain ti ff as s er ts th at, by f

ail ing t o i ns tall m et al d et ect or s at the entrance to a recreation ya rd of the Green Hav en Correctiona l Facility , defendants failed to pro te cthi m fro m o the r in ma te s a nd the re by vi ol a te d h is E ighth Am en dm en t ri gh ts. We a ss ume the par ti es ’ f amilia r it y with the r emaining f

actual andpr oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e. We agr ee wi thth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t that

“no r eas on abl e f

act fi nd er couldcon clu de o n thi s record that Defendants ‘disr ega rd[ed] an exce ss ive risk to [plaintiff’s ] . . . safety’ by failing to adopt Pl ain ti ff ’s pr op os ed s ecu r

it y me as ur es .” See Warren v. Goor d , 57 9 F . Supp . 2d488 , 49 7 ( S.D .N .Y. 200 8) (al te r ati on s inor

igi nal ) (qu ot ing Fa rme r v

. B rennan , 51 1 U. S. 8 25, 837 (1 994 )) . I n l igh t o f that conclusion, moreover, it would have bee n futile for the District Court t o permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to add anothe r defendant. Acc ordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Dis trict Court subs tantially

for the reasons s tated in its thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion and Or der dat ed S ept emb er

30, 200 8. Id

.

CONCLUSI ON
We ha ve considered a ll of plaintiff’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore go in g re a son s, the ju dgme nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court