
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Bashir SUMAN, Monie Rahman, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-966-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 5, 2011.
    
      Shane Bashir Suman, Monie Rahman, Toronto, Canada, Appellants, pro se.
    David M. Becker, Mark D. Cahn, Jacob H. Stillman, Christopher Paik, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, guido calabresi, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Shane Bashir Suman and Monie Rahman, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s judgment granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s summary judgment motion in its insider trading action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo an order granting summary judgment 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). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. Whatever force Appellants’ defense, proffered in Suman’s affidavit, might have had, its last-minute arrival at the courthouse, coupled with their prior refusal to submit to depositions, renders it too weak to generate a genuine issue of material fact in light of the overwhelming and undisputed evidence against them. Additionally, Appellants did not raise any meaningful or substantive challenges to the expert report prepared by Steven L. Rogers.

We have considered Appellants’ other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  