SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Harold Burroughs, Jr., 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, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of mate *66 rial 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). 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., Ltd. 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 Burroughs’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough report and recommendation, which the district court adopted over Burroughs’s timely objection. See Decision & Order, Pine v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012) (EOF No. 121), adopting Report and Recommendation, Pine v. Seeley, No. 09-cv-1198 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2012) (ECF No. 119). We have considered all of Burroughs’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.