Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Second Circuit

Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co.

17 F. App'x 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 2001

DocketDocket No. 00-9210

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. App'x 40 (Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co.) 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

Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co., 17 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in the Unit[41]*41ed States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.) dismissing his claims of race discrimination and retaliation. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Telesca’s Decision and Order. See Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co., 97-CIV-6583 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2000).

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 be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in the Unit[41]*41ed States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.) dismissing his claims of race discrimination and retaliation. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Telesca’s Decision and Order. See Armstrong v. Eastman Kodak Co., 97-CIV-6583 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2000).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. App'x 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-eastman-kodak-co-ca2-2001.