
    Isabel NIEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Howard Safir, Robert Esposito, Frank Wessels, Michael Diaz and New York City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees. Richmond County District Attorney’s Office, William Murphy, District Attorney for Richmond County and Mario Mattei, Bureau Chief for the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office, Defendants.
    No. 05-2925-CV, 05-3005-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 2, 2006.
    Louis A. Zayas, Hackensack, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Tahirih M. Sadrieh (Edward F.X. Hart, on the brief) for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges and Hon. JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.
    
    
      
      . The official caption lists "William Murphy, District Attorney for Ricnmond County.” The caption above corrects the typographical error.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants were granted summary judgment on most claims by a March 28, 2002 order of the district court, which largely adopted the June 4, 2001 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Poliak. Plaintiff went on to win $50,001 at trial on her remaining claim, and judgment was entered in her favor on May 9, 2005. Plaintiff now appeals so much of the district court’s order as granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Frank Wessels and Michael Diaz on her claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution and in favor of defendant Robert Esposito with respect to her supervisory liability claim. Defendants filed a cross-appeal but withdrew it before oral argument. We assume familiarity with the facts and issues in this matter.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir.2003). Having done so, we affirm the district court for substantially the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Poliak’s thorough Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  