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 "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Fortunato Garcia ("Garcia") appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the Defendants-Appellees by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Garcia challenges a number of the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law embodied in several decisions filed throughout the course of this litigation. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the district court's rulings that form the basis of this appeal.

We have reviewed de novo the district court's rulings on the motions for summary judgment, see Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013), and motions to dismiss, see Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002), related to all defendants in both their individual and official capacities. We conclude that the district court's rulings are thorough, legally sound, and firmly anchored in the factual record. We have reviewed the district court's decision to set aside the default entered against defendant Hebert and conclude that it does not constitute an abuse of discretion. See D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 107 (2d Cir. 2006); Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 95-97 (2d Cir. 1993).

Finally, to the extent Garcia invites us to revisit the issue of prosecutorial immunity as applied to defendants Campos and Wittstein that this court has previously resolved, Garcia v. Hebert, 352 F. App'x 602 (2d Cir. 2009), we decline. See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Div., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir. 1964) (outlining the "law of the case" doctrine).

We have considered Garcia's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.