
    Elridge DANIEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SAFIR, Commissioner, NYC Police Dept., Thomas Lamacchia, Wayne A. Corbett, C. Krug, Wendell R. Williams, Denis B. Guardino, Walter McCarthy, Neldra Zeigler, NYC FD, Juliano, Sgt., John Tumulty, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, Lonnie Mendolia, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, Anne Swern, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, Stacey Frigerio, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, Lori Noble, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, John Theodorellis, Esq., Asst. District Attorney, Robert M. Baum, The Legal Aid Society, Sanford L. Drob, Ph.D., Bellevue Hospital, John Doe, Clerk, Judge Stephen J. Rooney, John Doe 2, Supervisor, FDNY, John Doe 3 Supervisor, FDNY, John Doe 4, Arrestor, FDNY, John Doe 5, Arrestor, FDNY, Jane Doe 1-3, Clerk, Judge Karen B. Yellen, Thomas Von Essenn, FDNY, Michael Hess, New York City Corporation Counsel, Gregg Weinstock, Garbarini and Scher, P.C., Robert Friedman, Compwiz, Verizon, sued as Bell Atlantic Telephone Company, Karen Yellen, Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-7064.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2002.
    Elridge Daniel, Jr., pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Mark Gimpel, Deputy Solicitor General, Allison Penn, Assistant Solicitor General (of counsel), Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: CALABRESI, POOLER, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging numerous claims arising out of a dispute between him and the New York City fire department. Adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge in its entirety, the district court (Gershon, J.) granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice, except that the court declined supplemental jurisdiction of some of the state claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as were adopted by the district court.

On appeal, plaintiff raises several issues that were not raised below. We decline to consider the new claims for the reasons stated in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

We have considered all of appellant’s claims and have found them meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  