Anderson v. County of Nassau

Second Circuit

Anderson v. County of Nassau

173 F. App'x 53

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2006

DocketNo. 05-1957-PR

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F. App'x 53 (Anderson v. County of Nassau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. County of Nassau, 173 F. App'x 53 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered March 9, 2005 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, /.), dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

A district court’s refusal to allow continued discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 245 (2d Cir.2004). A district court does not abuse its discretion if the discovery sought was not “reasonably expected to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 244. Anderson’s plea of guilty to two counts of the indictment established that the defendants had probable cause to arrest and prosecute him. Roesch v. Otarola, 980 F.2d 850, 853 (2d Cir.1992). Therefore, the results of discovery could have prevented summary judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson’s request for useless discovery.

Because Anderson’s claims were properly dismissed as matter of law, we need not address whether the defendants have qualified immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered March 9, 2005 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Spatt, /.), dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

A district court’s refusal to allow continued discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 245 (2d Cir.2004). A district court does not abuse its discretion if the discovery sought was not “reasonably expected to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 244. Anderson’s plea of guilty to two counts of the indictment established that the defendants had probable cause to arrest and prosecute him. Roesch v. Otarola, 980 F.2d 850, 853 (2d Cir.1992). Therefore, the results of discovery could have prevented summary judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson’s request for useless discovery.

Because Anderson’s claims were properly dismissed as matter of law, we need not address whether the defendants have qualified immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. App'x 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-county-of-nassau-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack