Case Name: Jerry PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, Kevin Gentle, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michael Maisonet, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-13
Citations: 448 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: Nos. 10-1520-pr (L); 10-1638-pr (Con), 10-1687-pr (Con), 10-1699-pr (Con), 10-1727-pr (Con), 10-1728-pr (Con), 10-1730-pr (Con), 10-1731-pr (Con), 10-2159-pr (Con)
Parties: Jerry PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, Kevin Gentle, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michael Maisonet, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 448
Pages: 152–154

Head Matter:
Jerry PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, Kevin Gentle, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michael Maisonet, et al., Consolidated-Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 10-1520-pr (L); 10-1638-pr (Con), 10-1687-pr (Con), 10-1699-pr (Con), 10-1727-pr (Con), 10-1728-pr (Con), 10-1730-pr (Con), 10-1731-pr (Con), 10-2159-pr (Con).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2012.
David Benavides, Luis Javier, Michael A. Bernard, Gabriel Alcantara, Jose Fernandez, Carlos De La Rosa, Steven Morales, Jerry Perez, and Kevin Gentle, pro se, Naponoch, NY, for Appellants.
Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Denise A. Hartman, Victor Paladino, Assistant Solicitors General; for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appel-lee.
PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellants, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court's judgment granting the defendants' motion to dismiss their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
"We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court's judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation and by the district court in its decision. As noted by the magistrate judge, in Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court specifically held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit routine strip searches of inmates involving the exposure of body cavities for visual inspection subsequent to every contact visit with a person from outside the institution, provided such searches are conducted in a reasonable manner. See 441 U.S. 520, 558, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The searches at issue here were not rendered unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or qualitatively different from the searches at issue in Bell by the de minimis additional intrusions that required the appellants to expose their anal cavities twice during a single search and use of a flashlight to aid in the visual inspection. To the extent that the appellants contend that a flashlight was used solely to humiliate them, the Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of "objective reasonableness" under the circumstances, such that an officer's subjective motivation for performing a search is not relevant. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).
We have considered the appellants' other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
. Appellant Kevin Gentle's motion to join in the briefs filed by several of the other appellants is granted. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(i).