Case Name: Joseph James CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-16
Citations: 535 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 12-4403-pr
Parties: Joseph James CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: REENARAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Joseph James CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-4403-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 16, 2013.
Joseph James Castellano, Newtown, CT, pro se.
Matthew Beizer, Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Appellees.
PRESENT: REENARAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.
Judge John F. Keenan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Joseph James Castellano appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants based on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, and we will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir.2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Castella-no's claims. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 21, 2012 decision.
We have considered all of Castellano's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.