
    Willie James YELDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HOGAN, Donald Sawyer, Jeffrey Amodon, Barbara Stapholz, Maureen Adams, Charmaine Bill, Sam Lilly, Terrimax Millian, Jeffrey Norwicki, Mary Bullivant, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1129-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 12, 2010.
    Willie James Yeldon, Marcy, N.Y., pro se, appellant.
    Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Andrew B. Ayers, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, on the brief), for Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, N.Y., for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, B.D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Willie James Yeldon, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Yel-don’s complaint in its entirety. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of 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). To that end, 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) (quotation marks omitted). However, “eonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Yeldon’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  