
    Julian HEICKLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, New York City Police Commissioner, Jason Toala, Police Officer Shield # 27613, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1251-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 9, 2011.
    Julian Heicklen, pro se, Teaneck, NJ.
    Scott Schorr, Julie Steiner, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The original complaint listed "Robert Kelly” as a defendant, but the New York City Police Commissioner’s actual name is "Raymond Kelly,” and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Julian Heicklen, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying Heicklen’s cross-motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the 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).

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.

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