Bryan v. City of New York

08-4698-cv
Bryan v. City of New York

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F OR T HE S ECOND C IRCUIT

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 2 nd day of February, two thousand and ten.

Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges,
MARK R. KRAVITZ, *
District Judge.
_______________________________________________

ANDRES BRYAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 08-4698-cv

A.D.A. ADRIENNE LLOYD,
A.D.A. OLIVIA ROSARIO,
Defendants-Appellees,

CITY OF NEW YORK, GEOVANA REYES,
DELIA SANTIAGO, TATYANA PICO,
AND DENICE VIVA,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________

*
The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

1
 For Plaintiff-Appellant: ANDRES BRYAN, pro se,
Brooklyn, New York.

For Defendants-Appellees: PAMELA SEIDER DOLGOW, The
City of New York Law
Department, Appeals
Division, for Michael A.
Cardozo, Corporation
Counsel, New York, New York.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.).

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District

3 Court for the Eastern District of New York be and hereby is

4 AFFIRMED.

5 Andres Bryan appeals from the district court’s judgment

6 granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C.

7 § 1983 complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

8 the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on

9 appeal.

10 This Court reviews “de novo a district court’s dismissal

11 of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the

12 complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in

13 the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences

14 in the plaintiff's favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,

15 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). To survive a motion to

16 dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a

17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

2
 1 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also

2 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam).

3 Although all allegations contained in the complaint are

4 assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal

5 conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

6 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the

7 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

8 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

9 for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

10 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of

11 the record in light of these principles, we affirm the

12 district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons

13 stated by the district court in its thorough and well-

14 reasoned opinion. 1

15
16
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21

1
Plaintiff appears to assert for the first time in his notice of
appeal that he did not receive a copy of the district court’s order warning
him that the complaint against defendants Geovana Reyes, Delia Santiago,
Tatyana Pico, and Denise Viva would be dismissed unless those defendants
were served by December 10, 2007, or plaintiff demonstrated good cause for
failing to timely effect service of process. Even if true, that would not
excuse plaintiff’s failure to effect service for over a year after the
filing of the complaint. “[P]arties have an obligation to monitor the
docket sheet to inform themselves of the entry of orders.” U.S. ex rel.
McAllan v. City of N.Y., 248 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 2001).

3