Anthony AMAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. KELLEY, J. Landry, P.T. Justine, T.G. Egan, D.A. Senkowski, M. Allard, R. Girdich, G.S. Goord, J. Wood, Doctor I. Ellen, J. Mitchell, H. Worley, Doctor L.N. Wright, S. Nye, M. McKinnon, R. Rivers, L. Coryer, A. Pavone, L. Cayea, D. Armitage, J. Carey, P.W. Annetts, R. Rivera, E. Aiken, S. Gideon, R. Lincoln, D. Linsley, C.O. Gordon, J. Reyell, D. Champagne, J. Kelsh, W. Carter, F. Bushey, Cho Phillip, Cho Drom, A.J. Annucci, L.J. Leclair, D. Laclair, T.L. Ricks, A. Boucaud, H. Perry, B. Baniler, R. Lamora, E. Liberty, G. Ronsom, R. Maynard, C. Daggett, D. Selsky, K.M. Lapp, R. Sears, J. Babbie, Sgt. Champagne, Doctor K. Lee, R. Vaughan, M. Nisoff, Defendants-Appellants, O. Mayo, Defendant, 399 F. App'x 688

SUMMARY ORDER Incarcerated plaintiff-appellant Anthony Amaker, proceeding pro se, appeals from the grant of a motion for

summary judgment in favor of defendants, fifty-six employees of the New York State Department of Corrections, on Amaker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Amaker’s complaint, liberally construed, alleges that defendants’ conduct while Amaker was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility and Upstate Correctional Facility violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underling facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. We review de novo the decision of the District Court to grant

summary judgment and will affirm, only if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov-ing party (here, Amaker), reveals no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532, 535-36 (2d Cir.2010). Having conducted a de novo review, we hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, see Amaker v. Kelley, No. 01-CV-877, 2009 WL 385413 (N.D.N.Y.

Feb. 9, 2009) (adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety), that — to the extent that Amaker’s complaint contains well-pleaded allegations against defendants at all — defendants are entitled to

summary judgment as a matter of law. CONCLUSION We have considered each of Amaker’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.