Case Name: Donald BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey JAMES, Dr. Goldberg, Dr. of Chronic Care at Westchester County Jail Health Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-20
Citations: 441 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 10-3536-pr
Parties: Donald BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey JAMES, Dr. Goldberg, Dr. of Chronic Care at Westchester County Jail Health Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Donald BENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracey JAMES, Dr. Goldberg, Dr. of Chronic Care at Westchester County Jail Health Services, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-3536-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 20, 2011.
Donald Bennett, pro se, Valhalla, NY, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Gardiner, Senior Assistant County Attorney, James Castro-Bianco, Chief Deputy County Attorney, on behalf of Robert F. Meehan, Westchester County Attorney, White Plains, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Donald Bennett, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, with the view that "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Further, we review de novo a district court's ruling on whether a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649, 653 (2d Cir.2004).
Upon such review, we conclude that Bennett's appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge in his well-reasoned decision. See Bennett v. James, 737 F.Supp.2d 219 (S.D.N.Y.2010). We have considered all of Bennett's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.