
    Paul PALMIERI and The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Plaintiffs, Uzo Akujuo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF BABYLON, Steve Bellone, individually and in his capacity as Supervisor of the Town of Babylon, Wayne R. Horsely, Ellen T. McVeety, Carol A. Quirk, individually and in their capacities as members of the Board of the Town of Babylon, Dennis Cohen, individually and in his capacity as Town Attorney for the Town of Babylon, Paul J. Margiotta, individually and in his capacity as Assistant Town Attorney for the Town of Babylon, Bureau of Administrative Adjudication of the Town, Errol Williams, individually and in his capacity as Administrative Law Judge of The Bureau of Administrative Adjudication of the Town of Babylon, Eileen Augustine, individually and in her capacity as Court Administrator of the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication of the Town of Babylon, John Doe # 1 through # 30 and Jane Doe # 1 through #30, the latter names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiffs, the persons or parties intended to be attorneys for, and officials of, the Town of Babylon, both in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 08-4303-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 4, 2009.
    Uzo Akujuo, Pro Se, Babylon, NY, for Appellant.
    Andrew J. Mihalick, Krai, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP, Mineóla, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, and JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
      
       We direct the Clerk of the Court to amend the official caption as noted.
    
    
      
       Jed S. Rakoff, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Uzo Akujuo, pro se, appeals from an order of the district court granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States ■Constitution, as well as under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1985. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir.2005). Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and we affirm for substantially the reasons set out in the court’s thorough and well-reasoned August 1, 2008 memorandum decision and order.

We have considered all of Akujuo’s remaining arguments, and they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  