15-1003
Walker v. City of Utica
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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO 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 11th day of March, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________________
WILLIE WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 15-1003
CITY OF UTICA, DANIEL LABELLA, individually and
in his official capacity as Utica Police Chief, MARK
WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as
Utica Police Chief, JOHN TOOMEY, individually and in
his official capacity as Utica Police Captain, LOUIS
CAPRI, individually and in his official capacity as Utica
Police Lieutenant, EDWARD NOONAN, individually and
in his official capacity as Utica Police Officer, STANLEY
FERNALD, individually and in his official capacity as a
Utica Police Officer, FRANK MUCITELLI, individually
and in his capacity as a Utica Police Officer, JOSHUA
GRANDE, individually and in his official capacity as Utica
Police Officer, JAMES HOLT, individually and in his
1
official capacity as Utica Police Officer, TODD DUVAL,
individually and in his official capacity as Utica Police
Officer, MICHAEL CURLEY, individually and in his
official capacity as Utica Police Officer, SAMUEL
GEDDES, individually and in his official capacity as Utica
Police Officer, STEVEN HAUCK, individually and in his
official capacity as Utica Police Officer, LINDA FATATA,
individually and in her official capacity as Utica
Corporation Counsel, BRIAN BANSNER, HOWARD
BRODT,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Willie Walker, pro se, Utica, New York.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Zachary Christopher Oren and John Paul Orilio,
Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Utica Law
Department, Utica, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York (D’Agostino, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Willie Walker, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims that the defendants violated his civil rights by, inter alia,
subjecting him to false arrest, malicious prosecution, and an illegal search relating to incidents that
took place on October 24, 2009 and January 1, 2010. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, which is appropriate
where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
2
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson,
L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).
Walker’s brief challenges only the dismissal of his false arrest, malicious prosecution, and
illegal search claims. Accordingly, he has abandoned his other claims. See LoSacco v. City of
Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1995).
Our review of the record and relevant case law shows that the district court properly
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Walker’s remaining claims. We affirm the
district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its
thorough memorandum-decision and order.
We have considered all of Walker’s arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3