Case Name: Michael BLAYLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer Barry BORDEN, Sergeant John Swanson, Dr. John Supple, and Jane Doe, of Fishkill Correctional Facility, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-02
Citations: 363 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 08-2667-pr
Parties: Michael BLAYLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer Barry BORDEN, Sergeant John Swanson, Dr. John Supple, and Jane Doe, of Fishkill Correctional Facility, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
Michael BLAYLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer Barry BORDEN, Sergeant John Swanson, Dr. John Supple, and Jane Doe, of Fishkill Correctional Facility, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-2667-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 2, 2010.
Michael Blaylock, pro se, Staten Island, NY, for Appellant.
Richard 0. Jackson, Assistant Solicitor General, for Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.
The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Blaylock appeals from the April 16, 2008 judgment of the district court, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to prevent another inmate from assaulting him, acting with deliberate indifference towards his medical needs, and causing him to be wrongfully disciplined. He also asserted a violation of New York State Correction Law § 137, arguing defendants failed to provide him with a safe and secure environment. We presume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Anderson v. Recore, 446 F.3d 324, 328 (2d Cir.2006). We construe the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. On appeal, plaintiff contends that summary judgment was improperly granted to defendants because the district court impermissibly resolved factual issues against him. We disagree. The district court applied the appropriate standard in granting summary judgment to defendants and explicitly resolved all conflicts in the evidence in favor of plaintiff.
As the district court noted, "not . every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials...." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The district court properly determined that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs conditions of confinement posed a substantial risk of serious harm or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. See id.
The record supports the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs claim that he was denied proper medical care. Plaintiffs claim regarding the alleged deprivation of medical care fails, as a matter of law. See Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279-81 (2d Cir.2006).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons stated in the thorough and well reasoned opinion of the lower court, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court also denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff does not address these dispositions before this Court, therefore they are deemed abandoned. See Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 247 (2d Cir.2006). Similarly, plaintiff does not appeal his due process claim arising from the disciplinary hearing following his altercation with his fellow inmate. This claim too is deemed abandoned on appeal. See id.