Case Name: Derrick COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. SUTTON, M.D., in his/her individual and official capacity, Wellburn, R.N., in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-10
Citations: 355 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 08-0438-pr
Parties: Derrick COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. SUTTON, M.D., in his/her individual and official capacity, Wellburn, R.N., in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judge and J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 355
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Derrick COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. SUTTON, M.D., in his/her individual and official capacity, Wellburn, R.N., in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellees.
No. 08-0438-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2009.
Derrick Coleman, Pine City, NY, pro se. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Andrea Oser, and Rajit Dosanjh, Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judge and J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
J. Garvan Murtha, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Derrick Coleman appeals from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants Reginald Sutton and Tamela Welburn. Coleman alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for raising oral complaints regarding the medical care they provided him. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's opinion. See Coleman v. Sutton, 530 F.Supp.2d 451 (W.D.N.Y.2008).
Finding no merit in Coleman's remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.