Alleva v. New York City Department of Investigation

10-1340-cv
Alleva v. New York City Department of Investigation

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,
3 on the 9th day of March, two thousand eleven.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ____________________________________________________________
12
13 John Alleva,
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 -v.- 10-1340-cv
17
18 New York City Department of Investigation,
19 Defendant-Appellee.
20 ___________________________________________________________
21
22 FOR APPELLANT: John Alleva, pro se, Staten Island, NY.
23
24 FOR APPELLEE: Kristin M. Helmers and Norman Corenthal, Assistant Corporation
25 Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City
26 of New York, New York, NY.
27
28 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
29 DECREED that the district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
30
31
 1 Plaintiff-Appellant John Alleva, pro se, appeals from the March 16, 2010 judgment of the
2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J.) granting the
3 Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
4 underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.
5
6 This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo and focuses on whether
7 the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and
8 that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff &
9 Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there are genuine
10 issues of material fact, this Court is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible
11 factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v.
12 Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).
13
14 After reviewing the appellant’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings
15 below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough
16 opinion. We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit.
17
18 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
19
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24