15‐1469 Maldonado v. Evans

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of July, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: CHESTER J. STRAUB, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

ANGEL MALDONADO,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v. 15‐1469

ANDREA W. EVANS, Chairwoman, New York State Division of Parole, BRIAN FISCHER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, DIANA SHERRY, Facility Parole Officer, SUSANNA MATTINGLY, Parole Officer,

Defendants‐Appellees. 1 _____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: ANGEL MALDONADO, pro se, Malone, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: KATE H. NEPVEU, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew Ayers, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, on the brief) for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Western District of New York (Arcara, J.; Schroeder, M.J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Angel Maldonado, proceeding pro se, appeals from a

judgment in favor of Defendants‐Appellees2 in his suit under

,

asserting that Defendants‐Appellees Diana Sherry and Susanna Mattingly

1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform with the caption above. 2 Although Maldonado also named as defendants Commissioner Brian Fischer and

Division of Parole Chairwoman Andrea Evans in the District Court, he has not challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment in their favor on appeal. We therefore deem his argument against them abandoned. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown,

, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding, in civil appeal filed by pro se appellant, that issue not raised in an appellate brief are abandoned). delayed his re‐release to parole without affording him due process. We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the

case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Garcia v.

Hartford Police Dep’t,

, 126–27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Summary

judgment must be granted if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“Where cross‐motions for summary judgment are filed, a court must evaluate

each party’s motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all

reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration.”

Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union, Local 100 v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Parks &

Recreation,

(2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the District Court properly adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees. We affirm

for substantially the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in his thorough

September 26, 2014 report and recommendation.

We have considered Maldonado’s remaining arguments and find them to

be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk