Joseph James CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter J. MURPHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, 535 F. App'x 56

SUMMARY ORDER Pro se plaintiff Joseph James Castellano appeals from an award of

summary judgment in favor of defendants based on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review orders granting

summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, and we will affirm only if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir.2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Castella-no’s claims. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 21, 2012 decision. We have considered all of Castellano’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.