
    Mulk Raj DASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail WINKLER, Ms., Sam Luna, Mr., and David Hittner, Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 01-295.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 9, 2003.
    Mulk Raj Dass, FCC-Medium, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
    Deborah B. Zwany, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Paul Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: FEINBERG, MESKILL, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Mulk Raj Dass appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, J.), dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Gershon’s opinion. Dass v. Winkler, et al., 01 CV 6064(NG) (E.D.N.Y. October 9, 2001).

The dismissal of Dass’ § 1983 claim based on the use of improper procedures in revoking his probation is affirmed on the additional ground that the revocation decision has not been reversed or otherwise set aside. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).  