
    Samuel WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Bare Hill Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants, S. Hanna, C.O. Gardner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-1586.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 6, 2013.
    Samuel Walters, Beacon, NY, pro se.
    Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General; Owen Demuth, Assistant Solicitor General; for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Judge J. Clifford Wallace, of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Samuel Walters, proceeding ;pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting the motion for summary judgment of Appellees, correction officers Shawn Hanna and Ronald Gardner, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. 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 Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir.2004). 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.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). However, reliance upon conclusory statements or mere allegations is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532 (2d Cir.1993); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough February 15, 2012 report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Walters’s timely objection in its March 26, 2012 order.

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