
    Terrence TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn S. GOORDE, Commissioner of Nysdocs, Individually and Officially, Lester Wright, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Medical Officer for Nysdocs, In dividually and Officially, Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Individually and Officially, Pang Kooi, Chief Medical Doctor at Auburn Correctional Facility, Individually and Officially, J. Dolan, Doctor At Auburn Correctional Facility, Individually and Officially, Nancy Ryerson, Nurse Administrator at Auburn Correctional Facility, Individually and Officially, J. Barette, Registered Nurse at Auburn Correctional Facility, Individual and Officially, P.A. Laux, Physician’s Assistant, Auburn Correctional Facility, Individual and Officially Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1196-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 19, 2013.
    Terrence Taylor, Stormville, NY, pro se.
    Robert M. Goldfarb, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneid-erman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Terrence Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Taylor v. Kooi, No. 9:09-cv-1036(FJS)(DEP), 2013 WL 1180869 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013), adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 2012 WL 7784264 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2012). 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 “ ‘resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.’ ” Burg v. Gosselin, 591 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir.2009) (alteration omitted)). “Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

A prisoner’s claim, under § 1983, that he was provided insufficient medical care, is analyzed under the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101-3, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). “Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). To show that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, a prisoner must satisfy a standard that includes both objective and subjective components. See Wright, 554 F.3d at 268. The objective component examines “the conduct’s effect,” id., which measures whether there was a deprivation of medical care at all, and whether it was “sufficiently serious,” Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 268, 279-80 (2d Cir.2006). The subjective component examines “the defendant’s motive for his conduct,” Wright, 554 F.3d at 268, which requires a showing that the defendant acted “with deliberate indifference to inmate health,” Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 280.

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Taylor’s claim. We hold that Taylor failed to show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health, and thus did not satisfy the subjective element of the standard, substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Peebles in his comprehensive Report and Recommendation of February 29, 2012, which was adopted by Judge Scullin in his Order of March 20, 2013. Because we conclude that Taylor has not met his burden under the subjective component, we need not address the District Court’s holdings with regard to the objective criteria.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of Taylor’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  