Faltings v. Village of Rhinebeck

09-4226-cv Faltings v. Village of Rhinebeck 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 “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of June, two thousand ten. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges. __________________________________________ John P. Faltings, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 09-4226-cv Incorporated Village of Rhinebeck, NY, Chief of Police Richard Cunningham, Sergeant Peter Dunn, Police Officer J. Kelly, Carr Property Management Co., Christopher Carr, Barbara Jeek, Linda Miele-Cavallaro, Defendants-Appellees. ___________________________________________ 1 FOR APPELLANT: John P. Faltings, pro se, Rhinebeck, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: David L. Posner, McCabe & Mack LLP, 5 Poughkeepsie, NY; Andrew L. Zwerling, 6 Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, NY. 7 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.). 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 13 AFFIRMED. 14 15 John Faltings, pro se, appeals from the district 16 court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state 17 a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 19 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 20 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a district 22 court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 23 determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a 24 claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This Court “review[s] de novo a district 26 court’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Polanco v. 27 Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152, 155 (2d Cir. 2007). 28 29 Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we 30 affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the 31 same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough 32 order of dismissal. See generally Harrington v. County of 33 Suffolk, No. 09-3911-cv, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11375, ___ 34 F.3d ___ (2d Cir. June 4, 2010). We have considered all of 35 Faltings’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without 36 merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 37 AFFIRMED. 38 39 FOR THE COURT: 40 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 41 2