Anzalone v. O'Connell

Second Circuit

Anzalone v. O'Connell

51 F. App'x 75

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-9367

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 F. App'x 75 (Anzalone v. O'Connell) 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

Anzalone v. O'Connell, 51 F. App'x 75 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is APFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants Lauren Anzalone and James Purcell appeal from the decision of the district court (Janet C. Hall, Judge) granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Raymond O’Connell, the Superintendent of the Stratford Board of Education, and dismissing their claim that defendant’s threat to file a libel action against them for allegedly defamatory statements violated their rights to free speech. We affirm.

This case arose out of the same sequence of events, and involved the same defendant, as another appeal recently decided by a panel of this Court. See Colombo v. O’Connell, 310 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2002). In a per curiam order, the Colombo panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff Colombo’s complaint, on the basis that she had failed to demonstrate that defendant’s threat to file a libel action had an “actual” chilling effect on her right to free speech. See id. at 117-18 (citing Spear v. Town of W. Hartford, 954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.1992)). Because the instant case involves identical factual circumstances, identical applicable law, and nearly identical parties, we affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the Colombo panel.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is APFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants Lauren Anzalone and James Purcell appeal from the decision of the district court (Janet C. Hall, Judge) granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Raymond O’Connell, the Superintendent of the Stratford Board of Education, and dismissing their claim that defendant’s threat to file a libel action against them for allegedly defamatory statements violated their rights to free speech. We affirm.

This case arose out of the same sequence of events, and involved the same defendant, as another appeal recently decided by a panel of this Court. See Colombo v. O’Connell, 310 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2002). In a per curiam order, the Colombo panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff Colombo’s complaint, on the basis that she had failed to demonstrate that defendant’s threat to file a libel action had an “actual” chilling effect on her right to free speech. See id. at 117-18 (citing Spear v. Town of W. Hartford, 954 F.2d 63 (2d Cir.1992)). Because the instant case involves identical factual circumstances, identical applicable law, and nearly identical parties, we affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the Colombo panel.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 F. App'x 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anzalone-v-oconnell-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack