
    Anthony ARRIAGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden of A.M.D.C., City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-3410-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 25, 2010.
    Anthony Arriaga, Wallkill, N.Y., pro se.
    Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, Sharyn Michele Rootenberg, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y., for Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Arriaga, pro se, appeals from the May 27, 2008 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing Arriaga’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues as to any 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, this Court is “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) (internal quotations omitted). Discovery rulings and the denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 102 (2d Cir.2008) (discovery); Yerdon v. Henry, 91 F.3d 370, 378 (2d Cir.1996) (amendment).

After having reviewed Arriaga’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. Additionally, we note that Arriaga’s contention that he was assaulted due to his security risk group status is belied by his deposition testimony, in which he stated that he did not know why the other inmate assaulted him or if the other inmate was a member of a gang. Moreover, Arriaga presented no evidence in support of his claims. See D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (in order to defeat summary judgment the “non-moving party may not rely on mere conclusory allegations nor speculation, but instead must offer some hard evidence showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful”).

We have considered all of Arriaga’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  