SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Jose Rivera, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and 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 quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon such review, we conclude that Rivera’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned order. Rivera v. Bhavsar, No. 09-cv-1394 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2012). We decline to consider Rivera’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that Dr. Bepen Bhavsar was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in prescribing Condylox gel because of his history of seizures and mental illness. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Secs. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2008). We have considered all of Rivera’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.