
    Amin BOOKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Medical Provider # 261; John Doe, Medical Provider # 123; M.D. Pang Kooi; Genny Androsko, R.N.; Bill Robertson, Administrative Nurse, Auburn Correctional Facility; Lester Wright, Associate Commissioner of Health Services for DOCS, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-5080-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 3, 2010.
    
      Amin Booker, pro se, Comstock, NY, for Appellant.
    Frank Brady, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Nancy A. Spiegel, Senior Solicitor General of counsel), Albany, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and EVAN J. WALLACH, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Amin Booker, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel and appeals from the September 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendants, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, and dismissing Booker’s complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Booker alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On appeal, Booker argues that there are material facts that support a finding that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

As an initial matter, we note that Booker does not challenge on appeal the District Court’s dismissal of his claims against the John Doe defendants and Bill Robertson. Accordingly, we consider these arguments waived. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, “drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). “[Cjonclusory statements or mere allegations,” however, are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

We have considered Booker’s argument and find it to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order, we affirm the September 30, 2008 judgment of the District Court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Booker’s pending motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.  