Case Name: Robert M. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BONZAGNI, Warden, I/O Capacity, Ramon Martinez, I/O Capacity, Property Officer, C/O, I/O Capacity, John Doe # 2, I/O Capacity, Richard T. Biggar, Asst. Atty. General, I/O Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, James R. SMITH, Claims Comm., Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-23
Citations: 115 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: Nos. 02-0283, 02-0313
Parties: Robert M. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BONZAGNI, Warden, I/O Capacity, Ramon Martinez, I/O Capacity, Property Officer, C/O, I/O Capacity, John Doe # 2, I/O Capacity, Richard T. Biggar, Asst. Atty. General, I/O Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, James R. SMITH, Claims Comm., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
Robert M. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BONZAGNI, Warden, I/O Capacity, Ramon Martinez, I/O Capacity, Property Officer, C/O, I/O Capacity, John Doe # 2, I/O Capacity, Richard T. Biggar, Asst. Atty. General, I/O Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, James R. SMITH, Claims Comm., Defendant.
Nos. 02-0283, 02-0313.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 23, 2004.
Robert M. Grant, Enfield, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Michael J. Lanoue, Assistant Attorney-General, for Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT (on submission), for Defendant Appellee.
PRESENT: MESKILL, CALABRESI, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert M. Grant ("Grant"), incarcerated and proceeding pro se, brought this action in the District of Connecticut alleging that the DefendantsAppellees ("Defendants") engaged in a panoply of unconstitutional and illegal conduct in the course of administrative proceedings conducted in connection with Grant's complaints of missing property. The Defendants moved to dismiss Grant's complaint, and Magistrate Judge Garfinkel, before whom the parties consented to proceed, granted the Defendants' motion in a thoughtful and comprehensive opinion.
We conclude, based substantially on the reasoning of the court below, that dismissal of Grant's complaint was proper. We have considered all of Grant's contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.