09-2572-cv
Cates v. Potter
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
4 New York, on the 5 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 Circuit Judges,
10 JOHN GLEESON, *
11 District Judge.
12 __________________________________________
13
14 Elliot Ulysses Cates,
15
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 v. 09-2572-cv
19
20 John Potter, Postmaster General, Cheryl
21 Williams, Vanessa Duncan-Smith,
22 Toniette Henry,
23
24 Defendants-Appellees.
25 __________________________________________
26
*
The Honorable John Gleeson, of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting
by designation.
1 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: J ARED K NEITEL, New York, NY.
2
3 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Assistant United States
4 Attorney C AROLINA A. F ORNOS
5 (David S. Jones, Assistant
6 United States Attorney, on
7 the brief) for Preet
8 Bharara, United States
9 Attorney for the Southern
10 District of New York, New
11 York, NY.
12
13 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
14 Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.)
15
16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
17 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
18 AFFIRMED.
19
20 Appellant Elliot Ulysses Cates (“Cates”) appeals the
21 district court’s grant of Appellees’ Federal Rule of Civil
22 Procedure 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing his complaint alleging
23 violations of the Due Process Clause, Title VII of the Civil
24 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the
25 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., as well as
26 claims for defamation and breach of contract. We assume the
27 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
28 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
29 We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
30 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, “construing the complaint
31 liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the
32 complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in
2
1 the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282
2 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the
3 record confirms that the district court properly granted the
4 motion to dismiss. We affirm that court’s judgment for
5 substantially the same reasons as articulated in that
6 court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
8 court is hereby AFFIRMED.
9
10
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
3