
    Kevin VERTEFEUILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amy HOUDE, Health Services Administrator, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-5186-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 1, 2010.
    Kevin Vertefeuille, pro se, Newtown, CT, for appellant.
    Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut; Ann E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for appellees.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Kevin Vertefeuille, pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the ease, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003); Republic Nat’l Bank v. Delta Air Lines, 263 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2001). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are ‘required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.’” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Stem v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir.1997)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position [is] insufficient; there must be evidence on which [a] jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Here, even construing, as we must, all the facts in Vertefeuille’s favor, the district court properly granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as Vertefe-uille failed to present any evidence to contradict the affidavit of the Defendant’s medical expert, who stated that Vei'tefe-uille’s behavior leading to the issuance of the disciplinary reports was the result of his antisocial personality disorder and impulse control disorder, not his bipolar disorder. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as set forth in that court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered all of Vertefeuille’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  