Shawn M. BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Correction Officer Castro, # 7800, Correction Officer L. Beckwith, # 1983, Defendants-Appellees, Correction Officer John Doe, who worked August 30th 2012 at Rikers Island GRVC in its Administrative Segregation MHAUII Punitive Box the 7 am to 3 pm shift as Barber Shop officer, Inmate Oscar Punter, # 210 10 01563, Defendants, 622 F. App'x 10

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Shawn M. Berry, pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees the New York City Department of Correction and Correction Officers Beckwith and Castro in Berry’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which raises Eighth Amendment failure to protect and excessive force claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case,' and the issues on appeal. We review a grant of

summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawpng] all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 271 (2d Cir.2011).

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). ‘Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted

summary judgment to the defendants. Berry failed to demonstrate that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to support his failure to protect claim, see Hayes v. New York City Dep’t of Corrs., 84 F.3d 614, 620-21 (2d Cir.1996), or that Defendant-Appellant Beckwith’s use of pepper spray was excessive, see Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Sims v. Artuz, 230 F.3d 14, 21-22 (2d Cir.2000). Beckwith and Castro, in any event, are entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its May 22, 2014 decision. We have considered all of Berry’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.