Case Name: Iluminado MARRERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna WHITTAKER, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, George Ryan, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, Jim Lloyd, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Raymond D. Ogborn, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Gregory S. Perkins, Deputy at Chenango Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-06
Citations: 110 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: Docket No. 98-2904
Parties: Iluminado MARRERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna WHITTAKER, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, George Ryan, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, Jim Lloyd, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Raymond D. Ogborn, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Gregory S. Perkins, Deputy at Chenango Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
Iluminado MARRERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna WHITTAKER, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, George Ryan, Correctional Officer at Chenango Correctional Facility, Jim Lloyd, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Raymond D. Ogborn, Sergeant at Chenango Correctional Facility, Gregory S. Perkins, Deputy at Chenango Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 98-2904.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 6, 2004.
Iluminado Marrero, Auburn, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
Wayne L. Benjamin, Deputy Solicitor General, State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: MINER, CABRANES and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant appeals from a judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint.
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action after plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in accordance with its June 6, 1998 order. Furthermore, we conclude that, construing the unamended complaint in plaintiffs favor, none of his claims are likely to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.