368 F. App'x 161

2d Cir.

2010

Vincent WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn GOORD, W. Phillips, John Doe, Thomas G. Eagen, Gerald Guiney, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy of Security of Green Haven and D.O.C.S., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-5541-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 2, 2010.

Vincent Warren, pro se, Pine City, NY., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and EVAN J. WALLACH, Judge.^**

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Vincent Warren (“Warren” or “plaintiff“) appeals from a judgment of the District Court dated September 30, 2008, 579 F.Supp.2d 488, granting summary judgment to the defendants, who are employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“defendants“), on plaintiff‘s claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also appeals from the District Court‘s denial of his motion to amend his complaint.^* Plaintiff asserts that, by failing to install metal detectors at the entrance to a recreation yard of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, defendants failed to protect him from other inmates and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We agree with the District Court that “no reasonable factfinder could conclude on this record that Defendants ‘disre-gard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff‘s] safety’ by failing to adopt Plaintiff‘s proposed security measures.” See Warren v. Goord, 579 F.Supp.2d 488, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (alterations in original) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). In light of that conclusion, moreover, it would have been futile for the District Court to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to add another defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2008. Id.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiff‘s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Notes

The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.

The Honorable Evan J. Wallach of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.