07-1015-cv
Krug v. McNally, Jr.
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3
4 SUMMARY ORDER
5
6 R ULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORD ER D O NO T HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATIO N TO A SU M M ARY O RD ER FILED ON O R AFTER
7 J AN U ARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AN D IS GO VERN ED BY F ED ERAL R ULE O F A PPELLATE P RO CED U RE 32.1 AND THIS COU RT ’S
8 L O CAL R U LE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SU M M AR Y O RD ER IN A D OCU M ENT FILED W ITH THIS COU RT , A PARTY M U ST CITE
9 EITHER TH E F ED ERAL A PPEN D IX O R AN ELECTRO N IC D ATABASE ( W ITH TH E N O TATIO N “ SU M M ARY O RD ER ”). A PARTY
10 CITIN G A SU M M ARY O RD ER M U ST SERVE A CO PY O F IT ON AN Y PARTY N O T REPRESENTED B Y CO U N SEL .
11
12 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
13 Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of
14 March, two thousand ten.
15
16 PRESENT:
17 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
18 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
19 Circuit Judges,
20 LEWIS A. KAPLAN,*
21 District Judge.
22 _______________________________________________
23
24 Robert L. Krug,
25
26 Plaintiff-Appellant,
27 v. No. 07-1015-cv
28
29 Richard McNally, Jr., Bartle, McGrane, Duffy, and Jones,
30 Peter B. Jones,
31
32 Defendants-Appellees.
33 ______________________________________________
34
35 For Appellant: ROBERT L. KRUG, pro se, New
36 Baltimore, N.Y.
37
38 For Appellees: SCOTT W. BUSH, Roche, Corrigan,
39 McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Albany,
40 N.Y.
*
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
2 New York (Kahn, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5 Plaintiff-appellant Robert L. Krug appeals pro se from a judgment of the United States
6 District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) dated February 8, 2007, granting
7 summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees and dismissing Krug’s complaint brought
8 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Krug alleged that his privately-retained attorneys deprived him of
9 his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments by interfering with
10 and depriving him of effective assistance of counsel in relation to state criminal charges brought
11 against him. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
12 of the case.
13 We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and determine whether the district
14 court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
15 moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46
16 F.3d 196, 202-03 (2d Cir. 1995).
17 The district court did not err in determining that Krug failed to state a claim under § 1983
18 because the Defendants are not state actors. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40,
19 49-51 (1999); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981). Krug’s vague allegations of
20 conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights are also insufficient to sustain a claim under
21 § 1983. “[C]omplaints containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations that the
22 defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights are
2
1 properly dismissed; diffuse and expansive allegations are insufficient, unless amplified by
2 specific instances of misconduct.” Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 325 (2d Cir.
3 2002) (quoting Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation
4 marks omitted).
5 As to Krug’s state law claims, a district court has discretion to exercise supplemental
6 jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the court did not abuse its
7 discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Krug’s state law claims, in light of the fact
8 that it had dismissed all of Krug’s federal claims.
9 We have considered all of Krug’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
10 merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
11
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
3