Case Name: Eric K. CHERRY, Plaintiff, Thomas Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. Ernest EDWARDS, Superintendent, Otisville, C.F., D.O.C. NYS, Mr. Goord, Commissioner, D.O.C., NYS, Director T.G. Eagen, Central Office Grievance Committee, Doctor Sarrick, Otisville, C.F. Medical Staff D.O.C. NYS, Mrs. H. Miller, N.A., Medical Staff Otisville, C.F. D.O.C. NYS, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-17
Citations: 155 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 05-1366
Parties: Eric K. CHERRY, Plaintiff, Thomas Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. Ernest EDWARDS, Superintendent, Otisville, C.F., D.O.C. NYS, Mr. Goord, Commissioner, D.O.C., NYS, Director T.G. Eagen, Central Office Grievance Committee, Doctor Sarrick, Otisville, C.F. Medical Staff D.O.C. NYS, Mrs. H. Miller, N.A., Medical Staff Otisville, C.F. D.O.C. NYS, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Present: MINER, KATZMANN, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
Eric K. CHERRY, Plaintiff, Thomas Robinson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. Ernest EDWARDS, Superintendent, Otisville, C.F., D.O.C. NYS, Mr. Goord, Commissioner, D.O.C., NYS, Director T.G. Eagen, Central Office Grievance Committee, Doctor Sarrick, Otisville, C.F. Medical Staff D.O.C. NYS, Mrs. H. Miller, N.A., Medical Staff Otisville, C.F. D.O.C. NYS, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 05-1366.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 17, 2005.
Thomas Robinson, Beacon, NY., for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Mariya S. Treisman, Assistant Attorney General, for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York., for Defendants-Appellees.
Present: MINER, KATZMANN, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Thomas Robinson, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Maas, M.J.) entered pursuant to an unreported Decision and Order dated January 18, 2005, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Robinson's cross motion to amend the complaint. The parties' familiarity with the facts is assumed. For the reasons stated in the District Court's thorough opinion, we affirm.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.