SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Alyton Wright, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

On appeal, Appellant argues only that two of the defendants, Dr. Maryann Ge-novese and Dr. Robert Capone, violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care when they failed to prescribe him effective pain medication after heart surgery. Accordingly, he has abandoned his claims against the remaining defendants, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment claim and other Eighth Amendment claims. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2000) (“When a litigant— including a pro se litigant — raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, the issue is abandoned.”).

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 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 *315 judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, which the district court adopted.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.