
    Andre WAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lester N. WRIGHT, M.D., John E. Cunningham, M.D., Steven Van Buren, Regional Health Service Adm., Rodd Koch, Physical Therapist, Michael Anuszewski, Physical Therapist, John Ian Vitto, Physical Therapist, Danny Preocanin, Physical Therapist, Vincent Menya, Physical Therapist, Timothy Whalen, M.D., Mitchell Rubinovich, M.D., Corey, Corrections Sergeant, Bailey, Corrections Officer, Marge Byrnes, Regional Health Service Administrator, E. SOTILE, Facility Health Services Director, Fishkill Correctional Facility, I. Assefi, M.D., Delessio, Physical Therapist, Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 09-3751-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 17, 2011.
    Andre Waul, pro se, White Plains, NY, for Appellant.
    Victor Paladino, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; and Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Matthew J. Kelly, Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux, LLP, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DENNY CHIN, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption in accordance with this Order.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se Appellant Andre Waul appeals the district court’s judgment granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a summary judgment order 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) (internal 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 magistrate judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. We have considered Waul’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  