Case Name: David M. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark CHAPMAN, Debra Breese, Defendants-Appellees, Thomas Recktenwald, Joan Merry, John Tunney, Town of Wayland, County of Steuben, Village of Wayland, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-04
Citations: 412 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 10-721-cv
Parties: David M. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark CHAPMAN, Debra Breese, Defendants-Appellees, Thomas Recktenwald, Joan Merry, John Tunney, Town of Wayland, County of Steuben, Village of Wayland, Defendants.
Judges: PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROBERT D. SACK, and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
David M. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark CHAPMAN, Debra Breese, Defendants-Appellees, Thomas Recktenwald, Joan Merry, John Tunney, Town of Wayland, County of Steuben, Village of Wayland, Defendants.
No. 10-721-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 4, 2011.
David M. Skinner, Rochester, N.Y., pro se.
Joseph B. Rizzo and Anthony M. Sorti-no, Gallo & Iacovangelo, LLP, Rochester, N.Y.; Thomas J. Higgs, Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany, N.Y., for Appellees.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROBERT D. SACK, and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant David M. Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment granting the summary judgment motions of Defendant-Appellees Mark Chapman and Debra Breese. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are "required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment mo tion." Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).
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 district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Skinner's arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.