13‐1259‐cv
Doe v. City of New York
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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of March, two thousand
fourteen.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE,
RICHARD C. WESLEY
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 13‐1259‐cv
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant‐Appellee,
POLICE OFFICER KENNETH
MORENO, individually and in his
official capacity, POLICE OFFICER
1
FRANKLIN MATA, individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendants.
______________________
FOR APPELLANT: DANIEL E. KATZ, Rich, Intelisano & Katz, LLP, New
York, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: JANET L. ZALEON (Kristin M. Helmers, Max McCann,
on the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel
of the City of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Jane Doe appeals from a March 4, 2013 Opinion and Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin,
Judge) dismissing Doe’s claims alleging municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and alleging negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training under New
York law.1 For substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s well‐
reasoned opinion, we affirm.
1 Doe also brought a cause of action for respondeat superior under New York law, but
presents no arguments in support of a challenge to the dismissal of that claim on
appeal. We thus consider any challenge to dismissal of that claim waived. See generally
Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998).
2
We have considered all of Doe’s arguments and find them to be without
merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3