James WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, et al., Defendants-Appellees, 398 F. App'x 683

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant James Webster, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court granting defendants-appellees’ motion for

summary judgment and dismissing his complaint which raised claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged a series of violations of his constitutional rights. Webster also challenges the lower court’s denial of his request to conduct depositions and contends that the district court erred in failing to afford him sufficient solicitude in light of his status as a pro se litigant. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal. We review a grant of

summary judgment de novo, and in so doing, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See Okin v. Vill. of Cornwall-on-Hudson Police Dep’t, 577 F.3d 415, 427 (2d Cir.2009); Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196, 203 (2d Cir.2007).

Summary judgment is warranted only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199, 204 (2d Cir.2009). Webster contends principally that the district court improperly resolved factual disputes in granting

summary judgment. We disagree. Based on an exhaustive review of the record, we conclude, in accordance with the district court’s findings, that no issues of material fact remain in dispute and that defendants are entitled to

summary judgment for substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. Indeed, contrary to Webster’s assertions on appeal, we are unable to discern any factual disputes in the record that, if resolved in plaintiffs favor, could establish that defendants violated his constitutional rights. With respect to the discovery claim, we review a district court’s discovery orders for abuse of discretion, see Ind. Order of Foresters v.

Donald, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 157 F.3d 933, 937 (2d Cir.1998), and will reverse such a ruling only if “the action taken was improvident and affected the substantial rights of the parties,” Goetz v. Crosson, 41 F.3d 800, 805 (2d Cir.1994) (internal quotations omitted). We find no such abuse of discretion here. In so concluding, we note that nowhere — including before this Court — does Webster indicate, first, why the belatedly requested depositions were not noticed or taken in a timely manner, and, second, how the additional discovery would have been helpful, let alone necessary to his claims.

Finally, we find no error in the district court’s handling of plaintiffs pro se status. Specifically, we note that, contrary to Webster’s arguments on appeal, the magistrate judge made clear that he was affording Webster special solicitude in light of his pro se status and was construing his filings accordingly. To the extent Webster’s appeal can be construed as raising other arguments, we have considered them and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.