
    Luis AVINCOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward MARRA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-1262-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 29, 2011.
    
      Luis Arincóla, pro se, Albion, NY, for Appellant.
    Kate H. Nepveu, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellee in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that Appellee demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

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

Haring 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.

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