SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Francis Raymond Steiniger (“Steiniger”), pro se, appeals from the March 4, 2011 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), in his action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 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, “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 proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “[Cjonclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not-sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. State of New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2002).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we affirm the order of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough decision dated March 3, 2011. As the magistrate judge properly found, the IRS satisfied its FOIA obligations by conducting a reasonable search to locate the documents Steiniger requested. See Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994) (“In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case, the defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate and *81 that any withheld documents fall within an exemption to the FOIA.”). Steiniger is thus entitled to no further relief in connection with his request.

We have considered all of Steiniger’s arguments on appeal and found each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, the March 4, 2011 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.