Woodrow FLEMMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lester WRIGHT, Medical Doctor, Donald Selsky, Director of Special Housing, Anthony Boucaud, Deputy for Administration, Burdick, Medical Doctor for Flemming 12-03 to 3-05, Admikis, Hearing Lieutenant and Acting Captain, Regional Medical Unit Walsh Mohawk, Rosadro, Deputy, Head of Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Medical Center, Sharma, Head Medical Doctor in charge at Regional Medical Unit Walsh, Bishop, Security Sergeant at Upstate Correctional Facility, Pierce, Security Sergeant at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk, N. Smith, Nurse Administrator of Upstate Medical, Evelyn Weissman, Head Medical Director in charge, Upstate Correctional Facility, Deana L. Buffham, Medical Medication Nurse, Upstate Correctional Facility, Batis, In charge of Nursing, A Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Lisa OBryant, Nurse in charge, A Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Lovett, Security Officer at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk Correction, Szajer, Security Officer at Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Mohawk, Davis, Medication Nurse, E Wing, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh, Miller, Medication Nurse, Michael Maher, Acting Superintendent, Regional Medical Unit, Walsh Medical Complex, Mohawk Corrections, Gardner, Security Officer, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit2011-04-20No. No. 10-3565-pr

429 F. App'x 11

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Woodrow Flemming, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s decision and order denying his motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), for relief from the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

We review the denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous assessment of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.