Case Name: Kareem Shamel PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RPA Celia TINDALE, DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-18
Citations: 226 F. App'x 69
Docket Number: No. 06-4032-pr.
Parties: Kareem Shamel PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RPA Celia TINDALE, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 226
Pages: 69–69

Head Matter:
Kareem Shamel PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RPA Celia TINDALE, DefendantAppellee.
No. 06-4032-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 18, 2007.
Kareem Shamel Perry, Elmira, NY, pro se.
Ronald E. Sternberg, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
PRESENT: Hon. AMALYA L. KEARSE, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges and Hon. RICHARD MILLS, District Judge.
The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Kareem Shamel Perry, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of this case, its procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
We review the district court's dismissal de novo, accepting all allegations as true and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the pro se plaintiff. Here, the district court properly determined that Perry failed to allege that the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Perry's health, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and the complaint was properly dismissed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.