SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants Tashena Amprat-wum and Eric Fisher, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s May 13, 2013 judgment entered pursuant to the court’s May 9, 2013 opinion and order, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint alleging various constitutional violations and violations of state law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the *7 facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo, focusing 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). We resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). 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).

An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion and order.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.