10-1679-cv
Bishop v. Henry Modell & Company, Inc.
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
4 York, on the 11th day of May, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG,
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12 SAMAAD BISHOP,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 -v.- 10-1679-cv
17
18 HENRY MODELL & COMPANY, INC., in its corporate and
19 professional capacities, MODELL’S NY II, INC., DBA MODELL’S
20 SPORTING GOODS STORES, AKA MODELL’S II, INC., MITCHELL B.
21 MODELL, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman
22 /Chief Executive Officer of Modell’s Sporting Goods, JIMMY
23 AVILA, individually and in his official capacity as Store
24 Manager of Modell’s Store No. 66, RICH WALSH, individually and
25 in his official capacity as Store Director/Loss Prevention of
26 Modell’s Sports Goods, TINA LEWIS, individually and in her
27 official capacity as Property Manager of Modell’s Sporting
28 Goods, MARY NASLENAS, individually and in her official
29 capacity as Modell’s Sporting Goods Employee, CARMEN D. CORA,
30 individually and in her official capacity as Modell’s Sporting
31 Goods Employee, CITY OF NEW YORK, TIMOTHY CRONIN, Shield No.
32 18111, in his official capacity as City of New York Police
33 Officer, BEAUME, Shield No. 31337, in his official capacity as
1 City of New York Police Officer, JOHN DOES, 1-100,
2 individually and in their official capacity, whose identities
3 are not known at this time, JANE DOES, 1-100, individually and
4 in their official capacity, whose identities are not known at
5 this time,
6
7 Defendants-Appellees.
8
9
10
11
12 FOR APPELLANT: SAMAAD BISHOP, pro se, New York,
13 NY.
14
15 FOR APPELLEES:
16
17 All Modell’s Defendants: ROBERT SPOLZINO (Joanna M.
18 Topping, on the brief), Wilson,
19 Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
20 Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY.
21
22 City of New York,
23 Timothy Cronin, Beaume: Larry A. Sonnenshein, Assistant
24 Corporation Counsel, (Andrew S.
25 Wellin, Assistant Corporation
26 Counsel on the brief) for
27 Michael A. Cardozo,
28 Corporation Counsel of the City
29 of New York, New York, NY.
30
31 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
32 Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.).
33
34 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
35 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
36 AFFIRMED.
37 Plaintiff-appellant Samaad Bishop, pro se, appeals from
38 a judgment entered November 13, 2009, in the United States
39 District Court for the Southern District of New York
2
1 (Buchwald, J.), which dismissed his federal causes of action
2 for failure to state a claim, dismissed his non-federal
3 claims without prejudice to renew in an appropriate forum,
4 and denied him leave to amend. We assume the parties’
5 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
6 history, and the issues presented for review.
7 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant
8 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “construing the
9 complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in
10 the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences
11 in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,
12 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). We review the denial of a
13 motion for leave to amend the complaint for abuse of
14 discretion. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d
15 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007).
16 For substantially the same reasons set forth in the
17 district court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and
18 order, we conclude that the district court properly
19 dismissed Bishop’s complaint and denied his motion to amend
20 as futile.
21
22
3
1 We have considered all of Bishop’s arguments on appeal
2 and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing
3 reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby
4 AFFIRMED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk.
7
8
4