SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Patrick Gonzales, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s February 17, 2010, 2010 WL 533856, judgment granting defendants-ap-pellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his amended complaint. Gonzales sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his health in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 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) (quoting Stern v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York, 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir. 1997)). “[Rjeliance upon conclusory statements or mere allegations is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New *617 York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted).

We have conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles. We affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation and by the district court in its decision and order. The magistrate judge and district court correctly concluded that the undisputed evidence precludes a finding that the defendants acted with the requisite culpable state of mind in treating Gonzales’s hypoglycemia and carpal tunnel syndrome. See Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 280 (2d Cir. 2006) (“In medical-treatment cases [alleging an Eighth Amendment violation] not arising from emergency situations, the official’s state of mind need not reach the level of knowing and purposeful infliction of harm; it suffices if the plaintiff proves that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate health.” (internal citation omitted)). On appeal, Gonzales does not identify sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference.

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.