
    Elvin LeBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. D. ARMITAGE, Lt. D. Dresser, Lt. J. Rock, Lt. D. Bushey, Lt. H. Maynard, Lt. J. Miller, Lt. D.J. LaClair, Capt. R.J. Minogue, Capt. J. Bell, Capt. D. Uhler, Capt. J. Facteau, D.S.P. L.L. Turner, D.S.A. P.M. Knapp, D.S.S. J. Tedford, D.S.S. S. Racette, F.D.S. W.J. Hulihan, Supt. D.A. Artus, V. Fonda, I.G. Dir. of Ops, I.G. R.D. Roy, W.M. Gonzales, Deputy Counsel, K.S. Perlman, Deputy Comm. of Programs, D. Selsky, Dir. of S.H./Inmate Disc. Program, L.J. LeClaire, Jr., Deputy Comm., A.J. Anucci, Ex Deputy Comm. and Counsel, G.S. Goord, Comm., B.S. Fischer, Comm., Drown, Hearing Officer, DeClario, Employee Assistant, Liberty, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 11-3646 (Lead), 11-4233(Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 26, 2013.
    Elvin LeBron, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitor General, and Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges and MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Elvin LeBron, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of several claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint. LeBron also appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees on his remaining claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

Reviewing the decisions below de novo, we conclude that the district court’s disposition of each of LeBron’s claims was proper. With respect to the dismissal of several of LeBron’s claims pursuant 'to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders. See LeBron v. Armitage, No. 08-cv-508, (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2009 & Mar. 25, 2010). With respect to the grant of summary judgment of the remainder of LeBron’s claims, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over LeBron’s timely objection. See LeBron v. Armitage, No. 08-cv-508, 2011 WL 4566439 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2011), adopting LeBron v. Armitage, No. 08-cv-508, 2011 WL 4566445 (N.D.N.Y. July 19, 2011) (report and recommendation). We have considered all of LeBron’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  