
    Stephen PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF UTICA, Linda Fatata, individually and in her official capacity as Utica Corporation Counsel, Robert Palmieri, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Weed and Seed Coordinator, Louis Capri, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Steven Hauck, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Hiram Rios, individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    
      No. 12-97.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 18, 2013.
    Stephen Patterson, Utica, NY, pro se.
    John Paul Orilio, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Utica Law Department, Utica, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of this case as set forth above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarb-aum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Patterson, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, /.), granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of Patterson’s claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Lombard v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 280 F.3d 209, 214 (2d Cir.2002). Where a party chooses not to respond to a movant’s motion for summary judgment, the district court is still obligated to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. See Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 215 n. 18 (2d Cir.2012); Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800-Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir.2004). Here, the district court provided no reasons or citations to evidence in the record to justify dismissing Patterson’s claims. Instead, the district court noted only that Patterson had failed to oppose the summary judgment motion. This, as we have previously instructed the district court, is an insufficient basis to grant summary judgment to defendants. See Fabrikant, 691 F.3d at 215 n. 18.

Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND the case to the district court to determine whether defendants are affirmatively entitled to summary judgment.  