
    Michael JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rachael ALVAREZ, Detective Shield # 28354, Thomas Bertolini, Officer Shield #034841, Sgt. Fields, Frank Bleier, Shield # 02801, Warren Ernst, Officer, Shield # 18391, Det. John Fogelman, Shield # 07316, Det. Timothy Houlihan, Shield # 01555, Scott Martin, Officer, Shield # 28047, Robert Morgigno, Lieutenant, Det. John Palmese, Shield # 07181, Robert Santos, Officer, Shield # 06127, Det. Brian Smith, Shield # 01176, and Sabrina Tann, Esq., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-2147-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 19, 2010.
    Michael James, Jamaica, NY, pro se.
    Susan Choi-Hausman, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief) City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Michael James (“James” or “plaintiff’) appeals pro se from the March 31, 2008 final judgment of the District Court adopting the February 14, 2008 Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiffs actions alleging violations of his constitutional rights and asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment and, in the course of that review, we resolve ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir.2008); Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). We also review de novo the District Court’s granting of judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101, 103 (2d Cir.1998).

We have considered each of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s March 31, 2008 well-reasoned memorandum and order, Nos. 05-cv-5992, 06-ev-3007, Dkt. Entry of Mar. 31, 2008, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, we find them to be without merit. The District Court did not err in granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the pleadings and dismissing plaintiffs actions.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we Affirm the judgment of the District Court.  