SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy Kraft, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment, entered March 19, 2010, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims arising from his involuntary hospitalization, and the district court’s post-judgment order, entered April 21, 2010, denying his motion for reconsideration. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and “will uphold the judgment only if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is entered, demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the judgment was warranted as a matter of law.” Molinari v. Bloomberg, 564 F.3d 587, 595 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 140 (2d Cir. 2008)). We review a district court’s order denying reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Devlin v. Transp. Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 1999). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)) (reviewing denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion).

*26 Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Kraft’s claims. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See Kraft v. City of New York, 696 F.Supp.2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Kraft’s arguments on appeal — many of which merely reiterate arguments he made in opposition to summary judgment and for reconsideration below — fail largely for the reasons that the district court rejected them below. 1

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kraft’s reconsideration motion, as Kraft failed to demonstrate that the district court’s decision granting summary judgment was based upon an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.

We have considered all of Kraft’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and order of the district court.